Interesting. The parts that survived are the contract claims and the open-source license claims.
Contract is understandable - it supersedes almost everything else. If the law says I can do X but the contract says I can't, then I almost certainly can't.
It's nice to see open-source licenses being treated as having somewhat similar solidness as a contract.
The FSF's argument for their copyleft was always based on exactly the same foundations as typical copyright licenses. If Alice can say that you must pay her $500 to do X with her copyrighted thing, then logically Bob can say that you must obey our rules to do X with his copyrighted thing.
This invites courts to pick, smash copyright (which would suit the FSF fine) or enforce their rules just the same (also fine). It makes it really difficult for a court, even one motivated to do so, to thread the needle and find a way to say Alice gets her way but Bob does not.
Structuring your arguments so that it's difficult for motivated courts to thread this needle is a good strategy when it's available. If you're lucky a judge will do it for you, as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (the foundation of contract law) or indeed Bostock v. Clayton County - hey, says Gorsuch, the difference between this gay man and this straight woman isn't that they're attracted to men, that's the same - the actual difference is one of them is a man, but, that's sex discrimination, so this is a sex discrimination case!
Contract is understandable - it supersedes almost everything else. If the law says I can do X but the contract says I can't, then I almost certainly can't.
It's nice to see open-source licenses being treated as having somewhat similar solidness as a contract.