Thread

Oracle on the hook to pay data centre investors even if site has no electricity

158 points · 154 comments · Betelbuddy

gchamonlive · 1790335420 · focus · HN ↗
A too-big-to-fail about to fail certain it'll be bailed out? Another comment* raised a question about investments in fuel cells that could have been just for show. Are they doing max damage to leech as much cash as possible before implosion or it's just... I mean, it's oracle it's a mystery to me how they make so much money with selling crapware, so it might just be business as usual?
*<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49842884">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49842884
1. philipallstar · 1790336197 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't love Oracle, but they made so much money selling the best relational database on the planet for 40 years.
  1. jiggawatts · 1790337165 · focus · HN ↗
    "The best", but you'll be sued if you publish benchmarks: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt#DeWitt_Clause" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt#DeWitt_Clause
    Every time I use Oracle, I regret it.
    Just this month, I tried to hook it up to a modern .NET app with the latest Oracle client and discovered that if you cancel a transaction, the connection enters a broken state and is returned to the connection pool, "infecting it". After a half a dozen of those, the whole app server just dies with endless cancellation related exceptions. This isn't even the only such bug, apparently there's a whole family of pool-corruption bugs that have workaround config settings and everything!
    This was with version 23.26.301 which suggests that they've had a lot of major releases, bug fixes, etc... but basic functionality like "connect successfully to the database server every time" is totally broken and has been for many years.
    The issue tracker forums have tumbleweeds rolling through them and play the sound of wolves howling in the distance to provide just the right kind of "what are you still doing here?" ambiance.
    JsonDemWitOster · 1790341729 · focus · HN ↗
    What an honor for Professor De Witt (no relation to my handle).
    My handle notwithstanding, I'm smart enough to not take legal advice from HN but nonetheless I cannot stop myself hence the rhetorical question: how is a EULA clause like that even enforceable? If this isn't going against freedom of speech then this surely it's against some consumer protection laws?
    The cynical answer to that I guess is "a lot of money funding a legal team the size of a warlord's militia" and also "lobbying" but even then it doesn't track to me that this clause could have even that much of an effect as a scare tactic?
    rswail · 1790347807 · focus · HN ↗
    It's their copyright, they get to decide the conditions in the license if you want to use their software.
    The EULA is enforceable because you have to agree to it to use the software, and Oracle has large and well financed legal team who will descend from a great height on you and anyone who publishes the results of you doing performance testing.
    gchamonlive · 1790348492 · focus · HN ↗
    That doesn't address the question of the limits of what should be enforceable in an EULA
    rswail · 1790402470 · focus · HN ↗
    Agreed, but that isn't what we're discussing.
    The licensing laws around copyright have been developed over the last few centuries. They can be changed.
    But until they are, the limits are what they are. Currently, Oracle can put conditions on benchmarking and publishing the results in their license and its not only legal for them to do so, but they have prevailed in court when enforcing those conditions.
    onraglanroad · 1790354831 · focus · HN ↗
    Only to the point it doesn't infringe on your statutory rights.
    In the EU (and still the UK since they've not changed the law since) you have the right to benchmark software.
    However, it doesn't include the right to publish the results, so you can only do it internally for Oracle and any software that has similar clauses.
    gchamonlive · 1790357024 · focus · HN ↗
    There's freedom of speech missing somewhere in this, I guess, maybe, not sure where, just a hunch
    jasomill · 1790358526 · focus · HN ↗
    The First Amendment doesn't prevent the government from enforcing contracts between private parties who have agreed not to speak.
    gchamonlive · 1790358720 · focus · HN ↗
    There's still freedom of speech missing somewhere in this... it seems reasonable to me if we were talking about two businesses, but to prevent a john doe to publish benchmark results? Pardon me but that sounds a lot like corporate-sponsored state-backed censorship. Quite ironic considering Oracle is US-based.
    rswail · 1790402163 · focus · HN ↗
    If you're john doe, you have exactly the same standing as a business when agreeing to and complying with the conditions of the license from a copyright owner.
    It's not the government restricting your right to speak (1st amendment in the US), it's a private corporate "person".
    If you don't like the conditions of the license, you can do one of three things:
    1. Don't use the software
    2. Use the software in violation of the license, and face the consequences if the copyright owner takes action against you.
    3. Get the laws of copyright changed so that conditions about publishing benchmarks is not allowed to be removed by a license.
    jiggawatts · 1790386505 · focus · HN ↗
    > agree to it to use the software
    There's no "meeting of minds" and there's no exchange of value if I simply benchmark a piece of software and then don't use it any further.
    This is a bit of a grey zone legally, and steps all over a bunch of consumer protection laws, free speech laws, etc... depending on the jurisdiction.
    IMHO governments should explicitly ban these "gag clauses" because it prevents free market competition if customers are not allowed to benchmark software and publish the results.
    rswail · 1790402311 · focus · HN ↗
    I fully agree with you that governments should pass laws that restrict the rights of a copyright holder on what they are allowed to control by licensing.
    However they haven't, so until they do, you're stuck with the license as is.
    As for "meeting of minds" etc and exchange of value, that's irrelevant to the conditions of the license. It's not a contract. It usually starts off with something like "By using this software, you agree to the following terms...".

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.