There's something that often goes overlooked by promoters of open source licenses: The copyright holder is defining the licensing terms for others, not for themselves.

While it's true that it is culturally a faux pas to appear as though you are violating the "spirit" of your own license I think everyone needs a reminder that copyright holders are, by definition, not restricted in what they can do with their own stuff. Everyone else is a licensee bound to the terms of the license.

I realize that's not the only problem with Oracle's behavior. But I still think this point is important to acknowledge.

I'm not a lawyer, so if anyone can prove otherwise I'd love to hear the argument.

(Are there any licenses that do place limitations on the copyright holders themselves? Do we even need a mechanism for that?)