I wonder what Oracle would litigate over though? My understanding is that licenses are generally used by copyright holders to restrict what others can do with a

I wonder what Oracle would litigate over though? My understanding is that licenses are generally used by copyright holders to restrict what others can do with a work so the holder can profit off the work and/or keep a competitive advantage. Here I do not see this argument applying since the source is freely available to use and extend; the license explicitly allows someone to compile it and use it. In this case providing prebuilt binaries is more akin to providing a "cache" for something you can (and are allowed to) build locally (using ZFS-DKMS for example) using source you are once again allowed to acquire and use. What prejudice does it cause to Oracle that the “make” command is ran on Ubuntu’s build servers as opposed to users’ individual machines? Have similar cases been litigated before where the argument was about who runs the make command, with source that either party has otherwise a right to download & use?