I'm not a lawyer so I don't really have any clue :). But I suspect the defense would be that it's an agreement between two parties: you want to use their shit you agree to use it by their terms. The debate around these things has always been more or less centered on what it meant to agree, i.e. did I agree when I opened the shrinkwrap on a box? But with Oracle licenses there is not much doubt about what it means to agree, there being reams of paper evidence that you agreed, and large checks written to make that agreement concrete.
>>markbn+(OP)
I suppose you could also go at it from the angle that it's an anti-competitive practice and no license should be able to restrict you from publishing truthful benchmarks.
>>Asooka+z
You could knowingly publish incorrect, fictional, or fabricated results. When they sue, you won’t have violated any license. But at least oracle will look terrible.
>>Asooka+z
Yeah I don't know, you'd need a lawyer to weigh in on that. Contract law and all the stuff around mutual agreements and consideration (the monetary kind) is pretty fundamental. You can always walk away and use a different database. If they put a set of x conditions on a doc and you sign it and hand over a huge check I'd guess a condition would have to be actually illegal for a court to invalidate just that part of the agreement.
>>drb91+72
This sounds like a terrible idea. Maybe if one is a 15 year old kid, sure, for shits and giggles. Why would a researcher do this, damaging their reputation in the process? And what good does it serve anyone?
>>saghm+f8
You can clearly label it ad fictional and explain. Really the point here is to have some portrayal of oracle’s performance that is legal but pisses off Oracle.