So, the Java SE 7 and 8 votes passed.
Java SE 7 passed by 12 votes to 3 (Apache, Google and Tim Peierls voting against).
Java SE 8 passed by 12 votes to 3 (Apache, Google and Tim Peierls voting against).
Project Coin passed by 13 votes to 1 with 1 abstention (Apache voting against and Tim Peierls abstaining).
Project Lambda passed by 13 votes to 1 with 1 abstention (Apache voting against and Tim Peierls abstaining).
But it looks like many of the voters were unhappy.
Java SE 7 vote results
When voting for a JSR there is the opportunity to leave comments. These often indicate the true feelings of voters more than the actual Yes or No. Here are the actual vote comments for Java SE 7 (the Java SE 8 comments are similar but with reference to OSGi):
There is a lot in those comments to understand, and I can't cover it all now.
I do note Time Peierls decision (as an individual) to change his vote from "Abstain" to "No" and the reason given. Clearly, Oracle were asked to explain their licensing terms and how they square with the JSPA, and with the JSR text itself, and have failed to do so. My interpretation is that Oracle no longer felt the need to justify its actions.
I also castigate Hewlett-Packard, Ericsson AB, Fujitsu, VMWare (SpringSource) and Intel for not even having the courage to justify their actions (which are in direct opposition to previous votes). I will note that Intel has previously been a strong Apache supporter. However, I understand that the Intel representative on the JCP was changed a few months back, prior to the vote (no public source to confirm this as far as I know Update: the executive committee members list has been updated to show the change, which happened since July).
I am disappointed in all the "Yes" voters. Clearly Oracle intended to move Java SE 7 forward irrespective of the vote here. Thus voting "No" would have had no adverse consequences on the forward momentum and technical progress of Java. Since the main role of the Executive Committee, distinct from Expert Groups, is to consider the business implications it is clear that each company that voted "Yes" has given tacit approval to the business practices of Oracle. I suspect that they will come to regret that decision. Give a bully an inch and they will take a mile.
Today, Oracle won its battle in the JCP. But it was a stupid battle to have. Submitting a JSR whose licensing terms are in conflict with the JSR itself and with the JSPA was simply unnecessary. Voting "Yes" to it was simply cowardly.
The huge irony is that Oracle claims to support Java because all of its money making systems are written in Java, thus it is in its own interests to keep Java vibrant. Yet the strong-arm actions here simply push people away and harm that vibrancy. Go figure.
We should expect the response from the Apache Software Foundation soon.
Apache Software Foundation member, speaking personally
Oracle Java Champion, speaking personally
Not a committer on Harmony or OpenJDK