You do know, correct?, that the Copyright holder can simply rescind the
license if he is displeased with the way the licensee is behaving -
since the license is not supported by a contract.
The licensee would then rush to the Federal Court in his district to
seek a declaratory judgement regarding his rights, and then you're in a
diversity and federal-question suit.
But that is an option where the licensee paid no consideration for the
non-exclusive licensee grant (and no: obeying a pre-existing legal duty
is not sufficient for consideration)
I would like to note that in the Kasner(sp)? decision in the 9th circuit
the uneducated like to bandy about; the Artistic License was found NOT
to be a contract but a simple copyright license.
Also in the lower-court (California) Artifex decision the court didn't
even identify the "GPL" correctly, conflating it with the
offer-to-do-paying-bushiness preliminary writing (pay us, or accept the
GPL), but the court then allowed the Copyright holder to choose which
theory to go ahead with: Contract damages for the price of the
proprietary license OR pure Federal Copyright damages under the GPL
(because the GPL is not a contract: it's only a license. If the court
found it to be a contract it would limit the recovery to contract
damages under state law: which is WHY in Kasner the violator wanted the
Artistic license to be deemed a contract: damages of 0 (free))
However, GrSecurity is violating the GPL so you can just sue for
Copyright damages off the bat (as my other 2 posts quickly explain, I
haven't repeated the arguments here).