So my interpretation is (IANAL) that the Entrouvert released some library under GPL, and then when a big company used this free library, they wanted some money out of them and tried to use copyright mechanism to circumvent GPL as a free software license. Judge said they can't do that.
So looks like it's a good case for GPL.
The title is very misleading and some commenters here seem to be interpreting it differently, so please correctly if I'm wrong.
So looks like it's a good case for GPL.
The title is very misleading and some commenters here seem to be interpreting it differently, so please correctly if I'm wrong.