I'm interested in this case, so I'd like to know where you're getting your information. Is it
all off of JMRI's website? The judge's ruling did state that JMRI might have a case for
breach of contract, but the finding that a "nonexclusive license implicitly includes a promise
not to sue for copyright infringement" is certainly unsettling. I see that JMRI has
relicensed their code under GPLv2. Perhaps a GPLv3.1 explicitly stating that no promise to
not sue for copyright infringement is implied by the license would be a good idea?