I'm glad I didn't see this post earlier, because my response would have been much weaker.

My position about the original decision was that the judge got it wrong. If you've not met the terms of the copyright license, then you have no right to copy and it is a plain and simple copyright infringement case. This is the principle upon which a great number of copyright licenses are based, including very notably the GPL. However if I'd argued this back then, then I would have been arguing an uphill battle given that a judge came to the exact opposite conclusion.

Today I can make that exact argument but it is much stronger because, as I point out in Artistic License upheld by court, a higher court has issued a binding precedent saying that copyright law should be read the way that I think it should be read, instead of the way that you and the first judge think it should be read. Which I think is good. It means that people are able to make their software available for free but have their attached conditions be actually be enforced in the USA.

Even more importantly, the original precedent was not particularly binding on any other court, while the new decision has weight throughout the USA. Therefore the recent decision will be cited for many years to come. Hopefully it won't be cited in court very often for the simple reason that with a strong precedent, lawyers will advise clients to not bring lawsuits they will lose.