[sbx320]

Most of the prior GPL cases ruled on (including the one you linked) were about redistribution of modified works without providing source and about who actually has standing to sue regarding GPL violations.

This case however brings two new (as far as I'm aware) questions to the table:

- Whether the permanent license revocation clause holds up

- Whether the neural networks is considered a part of the covered work (and must therefore be provided in "source" form, rather than just a trained network)

The second one is especially interesting, since the court will likely have to go into how far the GPLs coverage extends into other parts of a covered work.