Restriction on distribution by Novell?

[David Woolley]

> Finally, let's remember that the FSF interpretation is ultimately 
> irrelevant.  Only the GPL text itself is binding as a license, unless 
> the FSF is a copyright holder and you interpret the FAQ as an extra 
> permission (which is legally dubious at best).

I seem to remember that the FSF's lawyer has argued that the clear
intended spirit of the licence would also be valid input to the
legal process, and that is one of the reasons for the pre-amble to
the licence.