It's mostly FUD: it's only relevant for the Oracle JDK; it doesn't apply to OpenJDK (or the other open distributions by other orgs).
OpenJDK license is another matter.
It is up to the courts and copyright holder to decided what to do with their IP.
These are fundamentally different things. One enlarges the set of actions a recipient is free to do relative to what vanilla GPL allows. This is permitted (and in the case of the classpath exception, endorsed) by FSF. The other attempts to shrink the size of that set by denying the user things that the GPL would otherwise allow. The FSF simply does not permit the GPL to be used in that combination (and there would be extreme contrast in your last sentence and the failure to recognize the FSF's say in this).
And secondly, you've yet to substantiate your claim that Java was ever distributed with such GPL-modifying restrictions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...
What's more, I've seen this interview multiple times. Listening to Gosling stutter and be coy is not illuminating in the least. He has no idea how to answer the question he was asked, much less what's being discussed here now.
Can you substantiate your claim or not?
Naturally it is hard for anyone to link to anything Sun, given what happened with their assets and Internet presence.
Is a substantiate argument? Maybe not, it doesn't change the fact that Google screwed Sun, didn't bothered to rescued it went it went down, and now we have Java and Android Java.
I guess FSF is happy with the outcome then, since it is allowed to tank companies.
Sure. But what they don't have is domain over the GPL.
I won't respond to the rest of your comment, which has nothing to do with the claim you made to kick off this branch of discussion and is just another attempt to change the subject (with what is an opinion, not a "fact").
This will be my last comment here.