brian_d_foy said:

When you read the ruling, you'll see that the court did not say that the Artistic License is a contract, but that the claim was not covered by copyright law, and might be covered under contract law.

In the part of the ruling where the court denied the request for an injunction, didn't the court say that the copyright holder could not enforce copyright as such, but might (and _only_ might!) be able to enforce the license terms as a contract?

Since the Artistic License is the only license involved, it seems to me that this _is_ troublesome for the future of the Artistic License. It's much more difficult to enforce it via contract, isn't it?