Oracle Java Licensing and Audit Risk in 2025: CIO Advisory Playbook
Oracle’s recent changes to Java licensing have elevated a once-technical issue into a C-level concern. The Oracle Java licensing overview gives CIOs the necessary foundation for these discussions.
In 2025, Chief Information Officers (CIOs) will need to grapple with Oracle’s new Java SE Universal Subscription model and its aggressive audit posture, which create significant financial and compliance risks.
Oracle’s shift to an employee-based licensing model means that organizations now pay for Java per employee, rather than per server or user. This model can dramatically increase costs for enterprises with large headcounts.
This change, along with Oracle’s stepped-up audit efforts, has transformed Java from a free utility into a potential budget buster and audit liability.
CIOs need a strategic playbook to navigate this terrain: ensuring compliance, controlling costs, exploring alternative Java providers, and mitigating audit exposure.
This advisory outlines key trends, critical insights, solution options, and actionable recommendations to help CIOs proactively manage Oracle Java licensing and audit risk in 2025.
A broader strategic view can be found in Oracle Java licensing changes 2025 – top 20 insights and strategies.
Background and Trends
Java’s Licensing Evolution:
Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems in 2010 ultimately led to the monetization of Java, transforming what had been historically free into a licensed product.
A major shift came in 2018 when Oracle introduced a Java SE Subscription with traditional Oracle metrics, Named User Plus (NUP) for desktops/users and Processor for servers.
Under this legacy model, organizations paid only for actual usage: roughly $2.50 per user per month or $25 per server processor per month for Java support.
For example, ~100 users would cost around $3,000 annually, or a 4-CPU server would cost about $1,200/year. This usage-based approach allowed fine-tuned cost control – companies could license specific users or servers rather than the entire enterprise.
Transition to Employee-Based Licensing:
In January 2023, Oracle overhauled this model by launching the Java SE Universal Subscription and eliminating the old NUP and Processor licenses for new contracts.
The new model is employee-based and enterprise-wide, requiring a Java license for every employee in the organization, regardless of whether they use Java.
Oracle’s definition of “employee” is broad it encompasses full-time, part-time, temporary staff, as well as contractors and outsourcers who support the business.
Partial licensing is not permitted; it’s all or nothing. In effect, Oracle offers “unlimited” Java usage across the company, but in exchange, every headcount is counted for subscription fees.
Cost Predictability Impact:
This shift has major budget implications. Oracle’s tiered pricing for Java SE Universal Subscription starts at $15 per employee per month for organizations with fewer than 1,000 employees, with volume discounts reducing the rate to around $5–$6 at very large scales.
For example, under this model, a mid-sized firm with 500 employees would pay roughly $90,000 per year (500 × $ 180 × 12).
Under the legacy model, the same company might have paid only for the specific Java users or servers, potentially costing $1,500 per year if only about 50 users or a few servers needed Java.
This lack of alignment between usage and cost means that many organizations face 3–5 times higher Java expenses, making budgeting less predictable. IT asset managers may prefer 20 things ITAM professionals must know about Oracle Java licensing compliance in 2025 for operational details.
Enterprises with large headcounts but modest Java use are particularly exposed – they must either accept paying for a lot of “shelfware” (employees who never use Java) or attempt to negotiate special terms.
Compliance Exposure:
The move to an employee metric also broadens compliance risk. Under the old model, if you inadvertently missed a few server installations or users, that was a contained issue.
A single unlicensed Java deployment can theoretically put the entire enterprise out of compliance since Oracle expects every employee to be licensed if any Java is used. Organizations that haven’t licensed Java (perhaps assuming Java was free) risk paying fees for their entire workforce if Oracle finds production Java usage.
This high-stakes exposure drives Java onto the radar of CIOs and even CFOs – it’s not just an IT issue, but a potential legal and financial liability.
End of Free Updates and NFTC:
Oracle has also tightened the screws on “free” Java avenues. Free public updates for Java 8 ended in 2019, and as of September 2024, Oracle no longer provides free updates for Java 17, aligning with the release of Java 21.
Oracle’s No-Fee Terms and Conditions (NFTC) license permits using the Oracle JDK in production only for the latest available version (e.g., Java 17 until Java 21 came out) and only as long as you update to the newest release within one year of its availability.
Any long-term production use on an older LTS version eventually requires a paid subscription or a switch to an alternative JDK. Practical advice on dealing with vendors is outlined in Oracle Java license audits – how to prepare and protect your organization.
Many businesses mistakenly interpreted NFTC as “Java is free again,” only to realize the free period is temporary and does not include long-term support or security patches.
By late 2024, organizations sticking with Oracle JDK 17 needed to start paying or migrate to Java 21 (and be prepared to repeat the cycle when Java 21’s free period ends).
Oracle’s Audit Blitz:
Alongside licensing changes, Oracle has ramped up compliance enforcement. Java has become an audit hotspot for Oracle, similar to its database audits. Oracle’s License Management Services routinely includes Java in their audit scope (since 2023).
Audit triggers include customers whose legacy Java subscriptions are expiring (Oracle closely tracks renewal dates), organizations that have downloaded the Oracle JDK without a purchase, or companies that Oracle suspects are using Java in production without a subscription.
Notably, Oracle often initiates “soft audits,” which are informal outreach efforts from Oracle representatives or emails inviting a discussion about Java usage. These friendly check-ins often precede a formal audit. If a company acknowledges unlicensed Java use or declines to engage, Oracle may escalate to a full compliance audit.
Audit Tactics and Threats:
Oracle’s audit tactics can be aggressive. During audits, they may impose tight deadlines and request extensive data, putting organizations under pressure. The strategy is clear: use the threat of back-license fees to drive sales of the Java subscription.
Companies caught running Oracle’s JDK in production without a subscription can be presented with a hefty bill covering licenses for the entire employee count (often back-dated to when usage began) plus back support fees.
Given that outcome, CIOs know non-compliance could mean an unexpected six- or seven-figure expense. Legal nuances are explored in Legal perspectives on Oracle Java licensing practices.
By 2024, Oracle’s overt and “stealth” audits are expected to increase, targeting both large and small organizations. Java is now firmly on the radar of software asset management and compliance teams, and by extension, on the CIO’s desk.
Summary of Trends:
In short, Oracle has transformed Java licensing into a revenue-centric, enterprise-wide subscription model. Costs are higher and more fixed, compliance is all-encompassing, and audit risks are significantly escalated.
At the same time, the market is responding with a growing ecosystem of alternative Java providers and heightened awareness of Java in IT governance.
CIOs must stay ahead of these trends by understanding Oracle’s model and tactics, and actively exploring solutions to avoid being caught off guard by an audit or budget shock. Finance implications are discussed in Oracle Java licensing costs – 20 things every CFO needs to know.
Table: Oracle Java Licensing Metrics – Legacy vs. Current
| License Metric | How It Works | When It Applied | Example Annual Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee (2023+) | License all employees (full-time, part-time, contractors). Unlimited Java installs enterprise-wide, up to 50k processors. | Current default for Java SE (Universal Subscription). Required for new subscriptions since 2023. | 500 employees = $90,000 (500 × $15 × 12). Covers any number of Java instances, but cost applies even if only a few use Java. |
| Named User Plus (Legacy) | License per named user (or device) authorized to use Java. Minimums applied (e.g., 25 NUP per server core in some cases). | Java SE Subscription (2018–2022) for desktops, developers, or known user bases. No longer sold (some renewals until 2023). | 100 users = $3,000 (100 × $30/year). Only those users or devices needed licenses, not the whole company. |
| Processor (Legacy) | License per processor core on servers where Java is installed. Used Oracle’s core-factor table (e.g., 1 Intel core = 0.5 license)r. Allowed unlimited users on that server. | Java SE Subscription (2018–2022) for server/JVM use. No longer sold for new licenses after 2023. | 4-core server = $1,200 (4 × $300/year). Only that server was licensed, regardless of user count. |
Key Trend: Legacy metrics enable companies to target specific Java deployments for licensing, keeping costs aligned with actual usage.
The new employee metric is a blunt instrument, far simpler, but it often dramatically raises costs and the scope of compliance. This has prompted many enterprises to reconsider their Java strategy moving forward.
20 Critical Insights for CIOs in 2025
To effectively manage Oracle Java licensing and audit exposure, CIOs should internalize the following key insights:
- Java Requires Enterprise-Wide Licensing Under Oracle (No Partial Coverage): If your organization uses Oracle’s Java in production, you must license every employee, even if only a few teams use Java. Oracle’s model doesn’t allow licensing a subset of users or servers – it’s an all-or-nothing subscription.
- “Employee” Count is Broadly Defined: Oracle counts all full-time, part-time, temporary staff, and contractors or consultants supporting your operations as “employees” for Java licensing. This broad definition means the license tally often exceeds your direct payroll count and can include third parties working on your behalf.
- Costs Have Skyrocketed for Many: The new per-employee pricing can far exceed legacy costs. Even with tiered volume discounts, enterprises report spending three times higher than before. For example, 500 employees cost approximately $ 90,000/year, versus perhaps a few thousand dollars under the old model for equivalent usage.
- Shelfware Licensing – Paying for Non-Users: The employee-based model inherently bills for “shelfware,” i.e., people who never use Java. Only a fraction of employees typically run Java applications, yet Oracle charges for everyone. CIOs should recognize this inefficiency and seek ways to mitigate paying for idle licenses.
- Legacy Java Licenses Being Phased Out: In 2023, Oracle ceased selling Java subscriptions based on Named User Plus or Processor metrics. Existing legacy contracts were allowed to run their terms, but Oracle has pressured customers to switch to the new model upon renewal. Relying on an old contract long-term is not a viable strategy.
- Java 17 “Free Use” Period Expired: Oracle’s no-fee terms allowed Java 17 to be used in production without charge for a limited time, but free updates ended in September 2024. Companies still on Oracle JDK 17 must either upgrade to Java 21 (the new free LTS) or purchase a subscription for continued support and updates. “Free” Oracle Java is always a temporary window, not a permanent solution.
- OTN License Restrictions: Oracle JDK downloads since 2019 are subject to the Oracle Technology Network (OTN) license, which permits free use only for development, testing, demos, or personal use, and not for production purposes. Any production use of Oracle JDK without a paid license violates these terms, a fact many non-technical executives were unaware of when Oracle first changed the license.
- Audit Risk is Real and Rising: Oracle has made Java a top audit priority. If you haven’t purchased Java licenses, assume Oracle will eventually audit your Java usage. By 2025, reports indicate a significant uptick in Oracle’s Java compliance checks and formal audits. No organization is too small to be scrutinized if Java is in play.
- Soft Audits as a Tactic: Oracle often initiates license audits through informal outreach. You might receive a friendly email or call about “discussing your Java deployment” – this is often a pre-audit probe. Treat any unsolicited inquiry about Java usage as potentially the first step of an audit, and respond carefully (or consult experts before responding).
- Audit Scope Can Be Enterprise-Wide: In a Java audit, Oracle can demand data on every Java instance across your desktops, servers, VMs, and cloud instances. Since the license is enterprise-wide, any untracked installation is a liability. CIOs need visibility into where Oracle JDK might lurk (including developer machines, CI/CD pipelines, and third-party packaged applications).
- Non-compliance penalties are Costly: If an audit finds unlicensed Java usage, Oracle’s compliance team may calculate backdated fees for every employee (often dating back to the start of unlicensed use) plus back maintenance. The bill can soar into millions of dollars for large firms, creating urgent pressure to sign a subscription deal. This “stick” is why proactive compliance is essential – the cost of being caught far exceeds the cost of proper licensing or migration.
- Java Use is Widespread and Often Under the Radar: Java is embedded in numerous enterprise applications and middleware solutions. CIOs may discover Java running in various locations, such as application servers, database tools, monitoring agents, and even hardware appliances. Shadow Java installations (unknown to central IT) pose compliance risks. A thorough inventory is vital to ensure that nothing is accidentally omitted when assessing licensing needs.
- Technical Pitfall – Mixing Oracle and OpenJDK: Some organizations attempted to use free OpenJDK for most applications but left a few systems on Oracle JDK, thinking those few could be licensed individually. Under the new rules, any Oracle JDK usage triggers the enterprise-wide license requirement. Mixing sources doesn’t avoid Oracle’s fees if even one Oracle JDK instance is in production. Eliminating Oracle binaries is safer if you aim to escape the per-employee model.
- Application Vendor Bundled Java: Check your third-party software contracts. Some enterprise apps bundle Oracle’s Java (or require it). Sometimes, the vendor has a distribution license (e.g., an Application Specific Full Use (ASFU) license) that covers your use of the application only. Using that same Java for any other purpose is non-compliant. Ensure that vendors clarify whether their licenses cover your Java usage, and if not, treat those Java installations as your responsibility to license or replace.
- Employee Count Changes = Cost Changes: The Java subscription cost is tied to your total employee count at the time of order. If your workforce grows, you may need to true-up licenses (depending on contract terms). Mergers, acquisitions, or rapid hiring could unexpectedly increase Java licensing costs. Conversely, significant layoffs won’t reduce costs until renewal (you generally pre-pay based on a fixed employee number per term). This dynamic makes Java licensing a discussion point in business planning – IT can no longer treat it as a static cost.
- Negotiation Leverage Exists: Despite Oracle’s official policies, everything is negotiable in practice. Oracle sales reps have some flexibility, especially if they sense a customer might abandon Oracle Java. Companies that pushed back have obtained discounts off the price list, subset licensing for specific business units, or even custom agreements (like Java ULAs). CIOs should not accept initial quotes at face value; engaging with Oracle through data on actual usage and alternative options can improve outcomes.
- Alternative Java Providers are Viable: The open-source nature of Java (OpenJDK) means that Oracle’s Java is not the only option. Companies like Azul, Amazon (Corretto), IBM, Red Hat, and Eclipse Adoptium offer Java distributions that are functionally equivalent to Oracle’s JDK. These alternatives are Java SE-certified (passing the same TCK tests) and have strong reputations. Many large enterprises have already migrated to reduce costs and avoid being locked into Oracle. When considering strategy, CIOs should view third-party Java vendors as a mainstream option, rather than a risky experiment.
- Third-Party Java Support Costs Less: Oracle’s premium pricing has opened a market for third-party support. Vendors like Azul and Red Hat offer support subscriptions for Java at a fraction of the cost of Oracle. For example, Azul’s pricing for supported builds or Red Hat’s inclusion of OpenJDK with RHEL subscriptions can yield significant savings per server or desktop compared to Oracle’s per-employee fee. Enterprises can get professional patches and assistance without Oracle’s price tag or onerous terms.
- Compatibility of Alternatives: Java is highly standardized. In practice, Oracle JDK and OpenJDK-based builds are nearly identical in functionality. Many alternative distributions are built from the same OpenJDK source that Oracle uses. Minor differences may exist (e.g., in packaging or a few utilities). Still, most organizations find switching distributions of the same Java version requires minimal to no code changes, just proper testing. CIOs should ensure their teams validate critical applications on a chosen alternative, but fears of “breaking Java” by switching are usually unfounded. Even Oracle’s Java products now rely on OpenJDK code, aligning compatibility across vendors.
- Java is Now a Governance Issue: Perhaps the most important insight is that Java can no longer be treated as a low-level developer choice only. It has become a strategic asset (or liability) that demands governance. Just as CIOs govern databases and ERP licenses, Java usage also requires oversight. This means including Java in software asset management, tracking installations, training developers about license implications, and engaging procurement/legal teams when negotiating any Oracle contracts that might include Java. In 2025, managing Java licensing and compliance is part of the CIO’s mandate to avoid surprise costs and service disruptions.
Solutions and Options
CIOs facing Oracle Java’s high costs and compliance demands have several strategic options.
The key is to strike a balance between risk, cost, and technical feasibility.
Below is an overview of alternative Java vendors and approaches, followed by considerations regarding vendor lock-in, compatibility, and migration.
- Stay with Oracle Java (Status Quo) – This is not a cost-saving option, but it is worth noting. Some organizations may accept Oracle’s model to ensure official support and avoid migration. This involves negotiating the best possible subscription terms with Oracle (e.g., multi-year discounts, caps on price increases) and rigorously ensuring compliance. While Oracle’s Java is functionally the same as others’, enterprises that have heavily invested in Oracle’s ecosystem, or those with regulatory requirements for vendor support, may stay on Oracle’s plan despite the cost. If so, strong negotiation and legal review are critical (e.g., seek clauses that waive past compliance issues or grant audit relief upon signing).
- Adopt OpenJDK (Community Builds) – The OpenJDK project is the open-source reference implementation of Java, and it’s free under the GPL license with no commercial strings attached. OpenJDK builds (e.g., Eclipse Temurin from Adoptium) can be deployed instead of Oracle JDK for most use cases. This eliminates license fees. However, companies going this route must handle updates and support themselves (or via a third party). Community OpenJDK releases are frequent and aligned with Oracle’s. Still, each LTS version’s free support window is limited (similarly ending when Oracle’s does, unless you build from source or backport fixes yourself). Many enterprises start with OpenJDK binaries as a quick drop-in replacement to get off Oracle, and then consider long-term support needs separately.
- Amazon Corretto – Amazon Corretto is a free distribution of OpenJDK with long-term support provided by AWS. Amazon uses Corretto internally for AWS services and offers it to the public at no cost. It includes security updates and bug fixes for LTS versions for several years (often beyond Oracle’s public updates). Corretto is certified as Java SE compatible. While Amazon doesn’t charge for Corretto or require an AWS account, it implicitly supports it as part of their ecosystem (and enterprise customers running on AWS can get support through AWS support plans). Corretto is a strong option for organizations that want a no-cost, well-supported JDK, especially if they already leverage AWS.
- Azul – Azul Systems provides the Azul Zulu OpenJDK distribution and commercial support. The Zulu builds of OpenJDK are free to use, and Azul offers paid support with SLAs for those who need enterprise-grade assistance. Azul has carved out a niche as a Java support specialist, often undercutting Oracle’s price. They also offer extended support for older Java versions (e.g., Java 6, 7, 8), which is valuable for legacy systems, long after Oracle’s support has ended. Migrating to Azul Zulu typically involves just swapping the JDK – it’s a certified Java build, so compatibility is equivalent to Oracle’s. Azul also offers features like Azul Platform Prime (an enhanced JVM), but these are optional for performance tuning and are not required for licensing. Importantly, Azul does not impose an employee-based fee – support subscriptions are typically per installation or core, allowing you to scope them to actual usage, thereby reducing costs and compliance scope.
- Red Hat OpenJDK – Red Hat maintains its build of OpenJDK (virtually identical to community OpenJDK) and supports it for customers. If your organization runs Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), you already have access to Red Hat’s Java runtime support as part of your OS subscription. Red Hat also makes significant contributions to OpenJDK development. The supported versions (for example, Red Hat will support Java 11 and 17 LTS for many years on their platforms) often outlast Oracle’s free period. Using Red Hat’s Java on RHEL can be a smooth path if you’re a Red Hat shop – it leverages a vendor you already pay, with no extra Oracle license required. The main consideration is that official support is tied to having an RHEL subscription or a Red Hat contract for OpenJDK on other OS platforms.
- IBM Semeru & Others – IBM’s Semeru (and its earlier IBM Java SDK) is another OpenJDK-based distribution (with an option to use IBM’s own JVM, OpenJ9). IBM offers it free and supports its customers (often bundled with IBM software agreements). Other notable mentions include Microsoft Build of OpenJDK (Microsoft’s supported OpenJDK distribution) and BellSoft Liberica JDK. All these alternatives share a common trait: they are based on the same Java source code standards and have no runtime cost. The choice often comes down to which vendor you trust for support and how it fits your existing vendor relationships.
Each of the above alternatives can free you from Oracle’s per-employee fees. However, CIOs must weigh compatibility, support, and lock-in considerations when selecting a path:
Compatibility and Migration:
Fortunately, Java’s strong standardization means switching JDK vendors is usually straightforward.
All major distributions aim to have binary compatibility with Oracle JDK. Tests and experience show that applications running on Oracle JDK can typically run on OpenJDK builds (such as Corretto, Zulu, etc.) with no code changes required in most cases.
Migration considerations are more operational than technical: you need to uninstall Oracle JDK and deploy the new JDK across systems, update any scripts or PATH settings, and verify applications perform as expected. Testing critical workloads in a staging environment with the new JDK is prudent.
In a few cases, minor adjustments may be necessary (for instance, if an app explicitly checks for “Oracle” as the vendor name, or if you rely on an Oracle-specific feature that has since been open-sourced or has an alternative).
By and large, Java is Java the bytecode doesn’t change between distributions.
Tools like Oracle’s JVM Flight Recorder have been open-sourced and included in OpenJDK since Java 11, reducing historical differences. Many organizations have successfully transitioned to non-Oracle JDKs with minimal disruption.
Vendor Lock-In Risks:
One reason to embrace open-source Java is to avoid being locked into any vendor’s licensing whims.
Oracle’s recent changes underscore the risk of vendor lock-in – once your enterprise is dependent on Oracle JDK, Oracle can unilaterally change pricing or terms (as seen in 2019 and 2023). Moving to open-source or third-party JDKs restores leverage to the customer.
Most alternative JDK providers use standard licenses that don’t restrict usage (or, in the case of support contracts, are limited to service terms without audits).
For example, if you go with Azul and later find a better deal or another provider, you can switch distributions again without re-coding – a classic commodity situation.
This flexibility keeps Java a competitive market. The key is to avoid proprietary extensions that could tether you to a vendor; sticking to standard Java SE features ensures you can easily switch between Java distributions.
Oracle’s proprietary features (e.g., Java Mission Control in the past) are now largely open or have substitutes, so lock-in at the technical level is minimal.
In summary, choosing an OpenJDK-based solution is a countermeasure to vendor lock-in: it’s challenging for any vendor to exert monopoly power when multiple drop-in replacements exist. For details on headcount licensing, refer to Understanding Oracle’s employee‑based Java licensing model.
Migration Considerations:
When planning a migration off Oracle Java, consider a phased approach:
- Inventory and Triage: First, identify all instances of Oracle JDK in your environment (on servers, VMs, desktops, build systems, etc.). Determine which are critical and which can be swapped easily.
- Pilot Migration: Pick a non-critical application and switch it to an alternative JDK distribution. Validate performance, monitoring, and stability. This helps build confidence and identifies any quirks early.
- Vendor Support if Needed: If you require help, engage the chosen vendor’s support during migration. For example, Azul or Red Hat can assist with tuning or issues as part of their service.
- Replace and Verify: Roll out the replacement JDK to the remaining systems. Most organizations script this through standard software deployment tools. Ensure that Oracle JDK is fully removed to avoid confusion in audits (you don’t want leftover Oracle binaries lying around).
- Update Policies: Internal policies should be updated to prohibit downloading or installing Oracle JDK without approval. Developers and IT staff should use the sanctioned JDK in the future to prevent “license creep” back into the environment.
If well-coordinated, a large enterprise can often migrate off Oracle in weeks to a few months.
It immediately stops the bleeding of subscription fees (or avoids them entirely if done before an audit). Given the potential cost savings and risk reduction, many CIOs view this as a high-return-on-investment (ROI) project.
Table: Oracle vs Alternative Java – Audit and Compliance Risk Comparison
| Java Provider | License Cost Model | Audit/Compliance Exposure | Support & Updates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oracle Java SE (Oracle JDK) | Proprietary license; subscription per employee (Universal Subscription). High cost for large organizations. | High risk: Must license all usage. Oracle aggressively audits Java deployments. Non-compliance can lead to enterprise-wide fees. Compliance management is complex due to broad scope. | Patches and LTS updates provided with subscription (Oracle Premier Support). Reliable updates but only while subscription active. |
| Oracle OpenJDK (NFTC license) | Oracle’s open-source JDK builds under NFTC (no fee) for latest version only. No purchase cost if within terms. | Moderate risk: No audits if within NFTC terms, but using an Oracle build beyond allowed scope (e.g. older LTS without subscription) violates license. Oracle could target such use in audits. Must track version updates to remain compliant. | Security updates for current release only; no extended support. Must upgrade to new versions regularly to get fixes. No Oracle support (community self-support). |
| OpenJDK (Community/Eclipse) | Open-source GPL license, free to use. No licensing cost at all. | None (license-free): No vendor can audit OSS usage. Compliance is only an internal matter of using a GPL+Classpath code correctly. However, ensure no inadvertent Oracle binaries are in use. | Updates via community (Adoptium etc.) for active versions. LTS updates may end when Oracle’s do, unless you self-manage backports. No official support; community forums available. |
| Amazon Corretto | OpenJDK distribution by AWS, free to use. No licensing fees. | None: AWS does not audit usage – Corretto is provided under an open-source license. Completely license-free runtime. | Amazon provides regular security updates for LTS (even beyond Oracle’s timelines). No direct support fees; AWS customers can get help via support plans. |
| Azul Zulu (Free) | OpenJDK binary by Azul, free for use. Paid support optional (per system or core, not per employee). | None for free use: No audits (free OSS usage). If on paid support, compliance is simple (ensure you don’t exceed purchased support entitlements). Azul is not known for aggressive audit practices; it’s service-based. | Regular updates for many Java versions. Paid support offers SLA fixes and even legacy version support. Azul’s business model is service, so no usage policing beyond contract scope. |
| Red Hat OpenJDK | OpenJDK included with RHEL subscription (no separate Java fee). Others can use free build from Adoptium. | Low: If using on RHEL, compliance just means having valid RHEL subscriptions (Red Hat doesn’t audit Java specifically). No Java license audits. Using the free Adoptium build is license-free. | Long-term updates for Java LTS through RHEL support. Red Hat backports fixes for years. Support available to customers as part of their subscription. |
| Other (IBM, Microsoft, etc.) | OpenJDK-based distributions, typically free. IBM offers support tied to its products. | None: These are free to use without license counts. IBM might require you to have a support contract if you want fixes, but they don’t audit Java usage standalone. | Updates and support vary by vendor. IBM supports Java with WebSphere/Cloud offerings; Microsoft provides updates for its build. Generally reliable LTS updates from each. |
Key Point: Non-Oracle Java providers eliminate the classic “compliance audit” risk – there’s no license for a third party to enforce in the open-source model.
The primary consideration shifts to support (do you need a vendor to call for help or patches?).
Many CIOs pay a smaller support fee to a vendor like Azul or Red Hat rather than Oracle’s larger fee for support and the right to use the software.
The difference is that with non-Oracle vendors, you’re typically paying for services, not for the right to run Java – a crucial distinction that avoids the predatory audit scenario.
Top 10 Recommendations for CIOs
Finally, here are ten strategic actions and best practices for CIOs to manage Oracle Java licensing and audit risk effectively:
- Inventory All Java Usage: Know your exposure. Conduct a thorough audit of where Java is used in your organization, including server applications, desktop tools, build systems, and embedded in third-party products. Identify which installations are Oracle’s JDK versus other distributions. This inventory is the foundation for any licensing decision or audit defense.
- Educate Stakeholders on Java Licensing: Ensure that IT staff, developers, and procurement know that Java is no longer “free” for commercial use in the Oracle sense. Develop guidelines: e.g., developers should use OpenJDK for development to avoid unintentional non-compliance, and any download of Oracle JDK must be approved. Building awareness prevents accidental violations (such as an engineer deploying an Oracle JDK Docker image out of convenience).
- Assess and Mitigate Audit Exposure: If you currently use Oracle Java without a subscription, treat this as a compliance gap. Proactively decide whether to license or replace those instances. If an Oracle audit seems likely (e.g., you’ve had Oracle reps ask about Java), consider engaging an independent licensing advisor or legal counsel before responding. Being prepared with data and a plan can turn an audit from a crisis into a manageable negotiation.
- Consider Third-Party Expertise: Engage independent Oracle licensing experts (such as Redress Compliance or similar advisory firms) for guidance. These specialists, often former Oracle auditors, can analyze your Java usage, help interpret contract fine print, and craft negotiation strategies. They can also act as intermediaries during audits, ensuring Oracle’s claims are accurate and preventing overreach. The cost of advisory services is often trivial compared to potential Oracle fees, making this a high-value investment for CIOs lacking in-house Oracle licensing expertise.
- Evaluate Alternative Java Vendors: Launch a formal evaluation of non-Oracle Java options (OpenJDK, Azul, Amazon Corretto, Red Hat, etc.). Have your technology teams test key applications on one or two of these distributions. The goal is to confirm compatibility and performance. In parallel, gather quotes for support from vendors like Azul or Red Hat if you need an SLA. This due diligence gives you concrete alternatives, strengthening your position whether you migrate or use them as leverage with Oracle.
- Develop a Migration Roadmap (if opting off Oracle): Should you decide to switch away from Oracle JDK, create a plan with clear milestones and responsibilities. Prioritize high-impact systems and those that are easy to switch (for quick wins). Ensure all new projects default to the chosen alternative JDK to avoid expanding Oracle usage. Communicate the plan enterprise-wide so that everyone is aware of the Oracle JDK phase-out and what to use as an alternative. A well-communicated plan also signals to Oracle that you have options, which can be advantageous in negotiations.
- Strengthen Contractual Position with Oracle: If you choose to stay with Oracle (or need to renew an existing agreement), negotiate hard. Aim for concessions such as: price locks for multiple years, flexibility to reduce licenses if headcount drops, and clauses that waive any past unlicensed use once you sign (essentially a clean slate). Additionally, clarify how the employee count is determined and whether you can exclude certain populations (e.g., subsidiaries, contractors). Although Oracle’s standard contract may not permit it, large customers have obtained exceptions. Always get Oracle’s commitments in writing, and involve your legal team to document any promises (verbal assurances mean little in audits).
- Implement Java Governance in ITAM: Treat Java like any other licensable asset in your IT Asset Management process. Maintain records of Java installations and their sources (Oracle or other). Use automation tools if available to detect Oracle JDK installations in your environment. Set up a process to approve Java use in new applications (much as you would for an expensive third-party software component). This governance will help avoid the scenario of “surprise” Java usage that could jeopardize compliance. It also positions you to respond quickly and accurately if Oracle audits you – you’ll have your data to compare with Oracle’s findings.
- Optimize and Right-Size Java Usage: Look for opportunities to minimize the footprint of Oracle Java in your enterprise. For instance, if certain legacy systems use Java only for a small component, can that be replaced or containerized with an alternative JRE? Are all installations of Java necessary? (Removing old versions and unused installations reduces risk.) By reducing the spread of Oracle Java, you cut potential licensing costs and shrink the surface area Oracle can audit. Additionally, consider upgrading applications to newer Java versions that can run under free-use terms or on open JDKs, eliminating the need for Oracle’s JDK.
- Align Java Strategy with Enterprise Architecture: As a CIO, guide your enterprise architecture to consciously decide where Java is used and which Java distribution is standard. If your business benefits from Java (which it likely does in many areas), you want that value without undue cost or risk. This might mean standardizing on an open-source Java across your application stack, or using Oracle Java only in areas where required (and isolating those to minimize license scope). Also, consider the future – for new projects, weigh the total cost of ownership of choosing Java under Oracle’s regime versus other languages or platforms. While Java remains free in its open form, using Oracle’s Java incurs a cost; in some cases, alternatives like .NET, Python, or other platforms might sidestep Oracle entirely (though they come with their considerations). The key is to avoid accidental dependence on Oracle. Make Java usage a deliberate decision, with full awareness of licensing implications, rather than a default that goes unnoticed.
By following these recommendations, CIOs can reduce their organization’s risk of an Oracle Java compliance crisis, negotiate from a position of strength, and potentially save substantial costs.
Java remains a critical enterprise technology, but in 2025, it must be managed with the same rigor as any major software contract. The CIO’s leadership in this area can turn Java from a lurking liability into a well-governed asset.
Read about our Java Advisory Services.
