tilly thanks for your summary.

Reading (well skimming, really) the decision, it seems to me that the basic reasoning behind it is that the artistic license represents restrictions on "economic rights" exceeding or extending mere payment for the software in question. In other words, the reasoning seems to be that because the software has some economic value even if it's been given away for free (under certain conditions - and this is, or seems to be, important), the license's conditions should be respected under standard copyright laws.

It seems to me that this kind of reasoning would apply to most popular open-source licenses in use today. Especially including the GPL and LGPL.

Anyone who knows about this stuff care to comment? I would especially like to hear about this from a European point of view (I live in Europe - the Netherlands to be precise - and I would like to have my rights under the usual OS licenses respected)