>Not true, you enter an implicit contract the moment you start using a product with a free license. Note that I've said product, not service. Services can very much update their terms and conditions, and frequently do so. Equally the creator can change the conditions and licensing on updates or new versions of a product. You can't be revoked a free license for a product you're already using though.
Incorrect, where the user has paid no fee (or service or action) to the copyright holder, there is nothing to support the existance of a contract where the user could hold the copyrightholder to the "terms". (IE: the free-taker attacking the hand that fed him)
The user MUST obey the license, but that is due to copyright law, not contracting law.
A court, may, at it's discretion, choose not to enforce the Copyright Holder's lawful rights under equity, of course, and may indeed do so for a lay user (a consumer). The use allowance would likely only extend to actual use of the software: not modification and public distribution.
(So-far, one must note, the courts only did so for commercial software for paying customers, some 1990s cases)
The Copyright Holder can prevent the use of its code in new versions of the product, aswell as new distribution of "old" versions of it's code (IE: pressing new CDs containing the now-withdrawn code (or new-downloads of said withdrawn code)). Shops that have old linux distributions with stock of old linux CDs would likely be-able to still sell that stock, however modification and distribution of the withdrawn code would not be allowed by the user of such.
The Copyright owner has not transfered his interest in controlling the distribution and modification, etc of his work. He has simply allowed it to occur, free of charge. That can end at any time.
The FSF requires a transfer of copyright for this very reason, regardless of what other surface excuses they give as excuses (which almost seem like fraud-in-the-inducement, honestly)
Attached: Ononoki.Yotsugi.full.jpg (500x707, 271K)