>>10

> Why do you reply with basically the same message over and over?

I didn't. You have ignored my reference to the NY court.

> You are not even considering or refuting my specific point.

Because it is wrong
>that is, the GPL ("License.txt") ONLY governs the CODE and BINARIES of the project.
"License.txt" is not the only writing stating the intentions of the rights-holders in existence anymore.
You are asserting that it is a fully-integrated (one page) "agreement".
When there are now multiple writings stating the intended disposition regarding the permission the rights holders are granting.
In some of these they state they do not want certain classes of persons to be using their code.

>The GPL cannot be revoked retroactively.
Yes it can be, from a free taker.