Missing sources stepping through Jigsaw code?

[Mario Torre]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:11 PM, dalibor topic <dalibor.topic at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 29.07.2016 12:51, Mario Torre wrote:
>>
>> Rather than justifying it, let's just assume the policy doesn't make
>> any sense, and live with it then :)
>
>
> If you base your analysis on an incorrect premise [0] you shouldn't be too
> surprised when you arrive at conclusions that don't make any sense.
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
> [0] For example, some kind of "open source way", applying to binaries not
> actually being published under an open source license.

This goes off topic, so I hope we don't degenerate, but the problem is
that those binaries are linked from the "Project" page, so they can be
all too easily confused with binaries to help testing the "Project",
so yes, there is an expectancy that they conform to some kind of "open
source way". Then, when you follow the links and pay attention you
find out that it's nothing more than courtesy builds from a related,
yet different, project that is not published under an open source
license.

This is the issue, and this is why I think we should be building from
sources and not be tainted. That being said, and being pragmatic, if
the restriction of studying and feedback would be lifted, that
courtesy builds would be very useful to everyone. I was probably harsh
in saying that it's non sense, I apologise, but it's definitely not
useful in their current state. Unfortunately, we can argue forever on
that, and even *if* we end up agreeing, I doubt either of us would be
able to change the license. But at least we made our point clear
hopefully.

Cheers,
Mario