2023 Java Licensing Changes
Executive Summary: In 2023, Oracle introduced a drastic new Java SE licensing model that charges per total number of employees, replacing the older per-user or per-processor metrics.
This Java SE Universal Subscription model significantly increased potential costs for many enterprises.
CIOs, CTOs, and IT Asset Managers must understand the 2023 changes to avoid budget surprises, strategize around the new pricing, and consider alternative approaches to managing Java usage under Oracle’s updated terms.
Oracle’s New Universal Subscription Model (2023)
In January 2023, Oracle announced a fundamental change to its Java SE subscription pricing: the Java SE Universal Subscription.
This model eliminated the legacy metrics (Named User Plus and Processor) and replaced them with a single metric based on the count of employees in the organization.
Key points of this new model:
- Employee-Based Licensing: Instead of counting actual Java users or processors, Oracle now defines the license quantity as the total number of “Employees” in the company. This broad definition typically includes all full-time, part-time, temporary workers, and even contractors or outsourcers that support the business. Every employee counts as a Java license, regardless of whether they personally use Java or not.
- All-Encompassing Scope: One subscription covers usage across all environments (desktops, servers, cloud) without having to count each deployment. Theoretically, this simplifies tracking: you report employee numbers rather than every server or user. But it also means even one instance of Java in use triggers the need to license your entire employee population.
- Universal Rights: With an employee-based subscription, Oracle grants rights to use Java SE on unlimited devices and locations within the company, up to certain processor limits (Oracle’s terms allow up to 50,000 processors deployed under one subscription). This “universal” aspect is meant to remove the complexity of juggling different license types for desktops vs. servers. It’s one license to cover everything, as long as you cover everyone.
- End of Legacy Subscription Sales: As of 2023, Oracle stopped selling the older Java SE Desktop or Java SE Processor subscriptions to new customers. Existing customers on the old model were typically allowed to renew for a limited time (under their current contracts). Still, any net-new purchase or expansion has to be under the employee metric. This forced customers evaluating Java licensing to confront the new model.
For Oracle, this shift aligns Java licensing with models in some SaaS and enterprise software, where pricing is per employee or headcount.
It arguably simplifies license compliance (there is no need to constantly count installations) but massively broadens the chargeable base for most companies compared to the old model.
Cost Implications: Old vs New Model
The financial impact of the 2023 changes is substantial for many enterprises. Under the legacy model, costs were roughly proportional to actual usage: how many servers or users run Java?
Under the new model, costs are proportional to organization size, regardless of usage concentration.
Let’s compare:
- Previously (NUP/Processor model): If Java were used there, a company would license, for example, 100 desktop users and 10 server processors. Small deployments meant low costs. Many companies with limited Java usage kept costs modest (tens of thousands of dollars or less annually).
- Now (Employee model): The same company must license all employees. If that company has 5,000 employees total (even if only 100 use Java actively), they need 5,000 Java licenses under the new scheme.
To illustrate the cost difference, consider a scenario:
- Company A has 1,000 employees. Only 50 employees (developers, analysts) run Java applications and have Java on five servers (2 processors each).
- Old Model Cost (approximate): 50 NUP licenses * $30/year + 10 processor licenses * $300/year = $1,500 + $3,000 = $4,500 per year (at list price).
- New Model Cost: 1,000 employees * $15/month * 12 months = $180,000 per year (assuming list price for that employee tier).
This example shows an extreme jump: from a few thousand to nearly two hundred thousand dollars annually, solely because of the metric change.
Even with volume discounting, the new costs are typically orders of magnitude higher if an organization’s Java use is limited.
Oracle set up tiered pricing for employee-based licenses to scale costs for larger enterprises. The list prices per employee per month (as of 2023) were approximately:
| Employee Count Tier | Price (per employee/month) |
|---|---|
| 1 – 999 employees | $15.00 |
| 1,000 – 2,999 employees | $12.00 |
| 3,000 – 9,999 employees | $10.50 |
| 10,000 – 19,999 employees | ~$9.00 |
| 20,000 – 49,999 employees | ~$7.50 (approximate) |
| 50,000+ employees | ~$5.25 (or negotiated lower) |
(Note: Prices above are indicative list prices; Oracle often negotiates specific deals.)
Even with these volume discounts, the cost of Java for a large enterprise with, say, 20,000 employees would be on the order of millions of dollars per year, whereas under the old model, it might have been significantly less if their actual Java footprint was moderate.
Why did costs go up so much?
Oracle’s new metric captures many “non-users” under the licensing umbrella.
The assumption is that Java is widely used enough in a company that charging per employee approximates the value derived. But this isn’t true for many organizations—they might use Java on a subset of systems.
The new model effectively penalizes companies with low Java utilization but a large headcount. Conversely, a company that uses Java everywhere (on every desktop and server) might find the employee model simpler and even more cost-effective if they had previously counted thousands of instances. However, such cases are less common.
From a budgeting perspective, CIOs now had to budget for Java licenses proportionately to employee count, which usually far exceeds the count of actual Java installations.
This was often a shock to CFOs and procurement teams who saw potential Java support costs balloon by 5x, 10x, or more.
Enterprise Challenges Under the Employee Metric
The 2023 licensing change introduced new challenges for enterprise software asset management and procurement:
- Licensing “All Employees” – Data Collection: Determining the number of licensable employees may sound straightforward (HR can provide headcount), but Oracle’s definition can be tricky. It includes part-timers and contractors involved in operations. Organizations had to ensure they had accurate, up-to-date counts and possibly had to include contractors from third-party firms, which isn’t always obvious in headcount. This raised questions: Do we count seasonal workers? What about outsourced teams offshore? The contract’s fine print had to be parsed carefully.
- Global Coverage and Organizational Changes: If a company acquires another company or grows headcount, its Java license requirements (and costs) go up automatically. Conversely, if it downsizes, it might overpay until renewal. The license essentially scales with the business. Planning for M&A or divestitures now needs to consider Java licensing impact, since a merger could suddenly double the cost if not negotiated otherwise.
- Low Usage, High Cost Dilemma: Organizations with minimal Java usage face a hard choice: either pay a large sum that feels disproportionate (licensing everyone when maybe only IT uses Java), or try eliminating Oracle Java. For many, this intensified the drive to seek alternatives. It also created internal debates: Do we need Oracle Java, or can we manage with open-source? The cost delta made those arguments more urgent.
- Audit and Compliance Shifts: In audits, Oracle no longer needs to count installations if you’re on the employee model; they just need proof of your employee counts. Some companies expressed concern that Oracle could use publicly reported employee numbers (for public companies) to enforce license counts. The compliance focus shifts from technical discovery (scanning for Java installs) to HR record verification. CIOs had to coordinate with HR to verify the employee counts provided to Oracle.
- Negotiation Leverage: The new model initially surprised many Oracle customers. Those in the middle of contracts or negotiations had to quickly adjust strategies. It is a take-it-or-leave-it model; Oracle was basically saying, “If you use Java, you must license all employees.” Some enterprises felt this was too rigid and pushed back. Negotiating any exceptions or special terms (like licensing a subset of employees) proved very difficult – Oracle’s stance was to simplify to one standard metric globally.
- Inclusion of Java in Enterprise Agreements: Oracle started positioning Java as part of broader enterprise license agreements (ELAs) for large customers. Since Java’s cost could be huge, bundling it into an ELA with databases or cloud services became a negotiating tactic. CIOs had to consider whether to wrap Java into a bigger deal or separate it. Both approaches had pros/cons, but Java was now a significant item in the Oracle portfolio to negotiate.
Reactions and Strategies from Enterprises
The enterprise response to Oracle’s 2023 Java licensing changes was swift, as organizations looked to mitigate the cost impact:
- Accelerating Moves to Open Source Java: Many companies that had tolerated Oracle’s subscriptions since 2019 drew a line at the employee metric. The cost justification became very hard if you were being charged for thousands of people who never use Java. As a result, several CIOs directed their teams to eliminate Oracle JDK usage entirely if possible. OpenJDK distributions (from Eclipse Adoptium, Amazon Corretto, IBM Semeru, Azul Zulu, etc.) saw increased adoption. The goal was to run the same Java applications but on non-Oracle JDKs that are free (or much cheaper with support contracts). This “Java exit” strategy requires effort in testing and replacing JDKs, but many found it worth the potential savings.
- Strict Internal Controls: Companies that had to stick with Oracle Java (due to specific application requirements or enterprise standards) imposed strict controls. For example, some required that any use of Oracle JDK get central approval, and they limited it to only where absolutely necessary (e.g., if a vendor mandates Oracle’s JVM for support). Everything else had to use an alternative JVM. By minimizing the footprint of Oracle Java, they hoped to eventually negotiate an exception or lower effective cost.
- Audit Readiness for Employee Count: Organizations prepared a defense for Oracle’s likely audit questions on employee count. They ensured documentation for arriving at the number (excluding interns, excluding contractor companies that don’t use internal systems, etc., if contractually justifiable). They also scheduled true-ups carefully—since adding employees mid-contract wouldn’t usually increase fees until renewal, some tried to sign longer terms to lock pricing before growth.
- Considering Third-Party Java Support: Instead of paying Oracle’s high fees, some enterprises looked at third-party support vendors. These companies offer patches for Java (often by backporting fixes from newer OpenJDK versions) at a fraction of Oracle’s price. While not an official Oracle route, it’s similar to the model used for Oracle database or SAP—go to a Rimini Street-like provider. This allowed older or current Java versions to run with support without paying Oracle directly. However, leaving Oracle support carries risks and contractual considerations.
- Budget Reallocation and ROI analysis: For those who had no choice but to accept the new model (perhaps due to heavy reliance on Oracle Java and lack of time to migrate), the huge cost increase forced a reallocation in the IT budget. Projects or other tool investments might be cut to fund Java support. CIOs had to present the ROI or risk avoidance case to justify spending maybe millions on “keeping the lights on” for Java. In some cases, it became a board-level discussion, given the size of the expense.
- Staying on Older Contracts Temporarily: A few organizations with existing Java SE Subscription contracts (pre-2023) chose to renew under the old terms as long as Oracle allowed, rather than immediately switching to the new model. Oracle did permit some legacy renewals if no changes in scope were made. This was a short-term strategy, hoping that by the time renewal was no longer possible, the company would have transitioned off Oracle, or Oracle might adjust pricing due to market backlash.
Overall, the 2023 changes were seen by many customers as Oracle “doubling down” on monetizing Java heavily. It created an urgent need for a Java licensing strategy at the CIO level, whereas before Java might have been a smaller line item.
Other 2023 Developments: Java 21 and NFTC Continuation
It’s worth noting that while the pricing model changed, Oracle continued its practice of offering the latest Java version for free under NFTC terms:
- Java 21 (LTS) Release: In September 2023, Java 21 was released, and Oracle applied the No-Fee Terms and Conditions to it, similar to Java 17. Java 21 could be free until one year after the next LTS. So, technically, even with the expensive subscription model, a company could choose not to buy a subscription if they migrate to Java 21 and plan to stay current. Oracle’s dual approach was to pay per employee for full support and any version usage, or use the latest for free without support and with a ticking clock on updates.
- Updated NFTC Terms: Oracle refined some NFTC conditions (e.g., clarifying that free use is only for internal business operations and not for any reseller or SaaS redistribution that charges for Java). They wanted to prevent abuse of the free license. Generally, however, NFTC remains a path for those who can live on the latest version and don’t need long-term support.
These developments meant that even in 2023, CIOs had a kind of fork in the road:
- Pay the steep subscription to cover all Java needs (and then you can run any version, get all patches, Oracle support, etc.).
- Adopt an aggressive upgrade cycle using Oracle’s free LTS releases, avoiding cost but taking on more operational risk and no formal support.
- Migrate off Oracle entirely to other JDKs, avoiding Oracle cost but introducing reliance on other vendors or communities.
Each option has trade-offs, and some enterprises even pursued a mix of these approaches depending on the system or business unit.
Recommendations
Given the 2023 changes to Oracle’s Java licensing, here are strategic recommendations for CIOs and IT decision-makers:
- 1. Re-Evaluate Java Usage and Necessity: Conduct a thorough review of where Oracle Java is needed in your environment. Identify applications that explicitly require Oracle’s JDK versus those that could run on an open-source equivalent. The goal is to shrink the scope of Oracle-dependent Java as much as possible.
- 2. Migrate to Alternative Java Distributions: If feasible, transition workloads to OpenJDK distributions (e.g., Eclipse Temurin/Adoptium, Amazon Corretto, Microsoft Build of OpenJDK, Azul, etc.). These are free to use and can drastically reduce or eliminate Oracle licensing costs. Ensure that support is arranged for these (either via in-house expertise or third-party support contracts), especially for critical systems.
- 3. Limit New Oracle Java Deployments: Institute policies that any new projects or deployments should avoid Oracle JDK unless absolutely necessary. Encourage using containerized runtimes or platform-agnostic approaches that make it easier to substitute the Java runtime later. By preventing further sprawl of Oracle Java, you contain potential licensing exposure.
- 4. Negotiate Transitional Terms with Oracle: If you are an Oracle Java customer, engage Oracle to negotiate terms. For example, see if they will allow a phased approach: perhaps license a subset of employees corresponding to actual usage for a limited time or secure a significant discount on the employee-based pricing. Use any leverage (like considering moving away) to get concessions.
- 5. Consider Java License Alternatives in Contracts: Talk to those vendors for third-party software that requires Java. Some software vendors can bundle Java runtime licenses for you under their agreements (they might have an Oracle Java ISV deal). If so, you might not need to license those uses separately. Or explore if they support running on OpenJDK so you’re not forced into Oracle licenses just for their product.
- 6. Optimize Employee Count if Licensing: If you must go with Oracle’s per-employee model, ensure you aren’t over-counting. Exclude any roles or entities that the contract might not require. For instance, if certain contractors don’t use company systems, argue to exclude them. Also, track your employee count actively; if you have a significant drop in headcount or divest a business, negotiate a reduction in the subscription at renewal.
- 7. Lock in Pricing with Longer Terms: Oracle’s support contracts typically rise yearly (support renewal uplift). If Java is now a large cost, consider negotiating a multi-year agreement that fixes the price or caps increases. A 3-5 year locked rate could save money compared to annual renewals with 4% increases. It also protects against Oracle potentially raising the base price for Java subscriptions in the future.
- 8. Strengthen Approval and Governance: Treat Oracle Java as a high-cost resource that requires governance. Implement an approval workflow for any download or installation of Oracle JDK. Keep a central register of all Oracle Java instances and ensure everyone knows that unapproved installations are prohibited. This helps avoid inadvertent liability (like someone installing Java 8 and unknowingly incurring the need for an enterprise-wide license).
- 9. Explore Third-Party Support for Legacy Java: If you have older Java versions in production that are hard to upgrade (and would be costly to license under the new model), look at third-party Java support firms. They can provide Java 8 or 11 patches at a fraction of Oracle’s cost. This can be a temporary bridge while you refactor or upgrade those systems, without paying Oracle’s full fee.
- 10. Revisit Application Architecture: Consider how heavily your enterprise wants to rely on Java in the long run. With Oracle making Java a monetized product, some organizations are rethinking building new apps in Java versus other languages/platforms. You might diversify your technology stack if vendor neutrality and cost are priorities. This is a strategic consideration – Java is still hugely popular and technically sound, but the licensing aspect might factor into technology choices, especially for new initiatives.
- 11. Keep Stakeholders Informed: Communicate the impact of Oracle’s changes to executive leadership. Ensure the CFO and procurement understand why Java costs might spike and your strategy (e.g., invest in migration now to save later, or pay a negotiated fee as a risk avoidance measure). Top-level buy-in will be crucial since decisions like migrating off Oracle or entering a big subscription have enterprise-wide implications.
FAQ: 2023 Java Licensing Changes
What is the new Java licensing model introduced in 2023?
Oracle introduced an employee-based licensing model for Java SE, replacing the previous Named User Plus and Processor-based models.
How is pricing determined in the new model?
Pricing is based on the total number of employees within an organization, regardless of whether they use Java.
Are contractors and part-time workers included in the employee count?
Oracle includes full-time, part-time, contractors, and even temporary staff in its employee count.
What happened to the Named User Plus (NUP) license?
The NUP license was discontinued in 2023, and all Java licenses must now be purchased under the new employee-based model.
Do the old agreements still apply?
Yes, agreements like the BCL, OTN SE, and NFTC remain valid. Although the licensing metrics have changed, the usage terms have remained unchanged.
Does this change affect Java usage terms?
No, the terms of use remain the same. The change only affects how companies determine their licensing costs.
How does this impact my current license agreements?
If you previously licensed Java under agreements like BCL, those agreements are still valid, but any new subscription must follow the employee-based pricing model.
What are the key differences between the new and old models?
Unlike the old NUP and Processor licenses, which are based on individual users or servers, the new model licenses are based on employee count.
How do I determine my organization’s employee count?
When calculating the employee count for licensing, you need to include all full-time, part-time, contractors, and temporary workers in your headcount.
Does this change increase licensing costs?
For many larger organizations, the shift to employee-based licensing could increase costs, especially if only a portion of the workforce uses Java.
What if my workforce changes during the year?
Oracle expects organizations to track their employee count accurately. Therefore, licensing fees must reflect the workforce size, including changes.
Is there a way to reduce Java licensing costs under this model?
You could consider moving to open-source alternatives like OpenJDK to reduce licensing fees if your Java needs are minimal.
Are volume discounts available in this new model?
Oracle offers volume discounts, but the cost remains linked to the total number of employees, so larger organizations may need to negotiate effectively.
What happens if I don\u2019t accurately report employee numbers?
Failure to accurately report employee numbers could result in compliance issues and penalties from Oracle.
Should I switch to a different Java distribution?
If the new licensing model increases costs, switching to other Java distributions, such as OpenJDK, may be a viable option for your organization.
Read more about our Oracle License Management Services.
