It still means the company is supposed to comply. But then, who has the right to terminate the license if noncompliance is found? It seems that the court sided

It still means the company is supposed to comply. But then, who has the right to terminate the license if noncompliance is found? It seems that the court sided that each author can only terminate the licence on the pieces of code they worked on. This ruling will make enforcing it on Linux kernel require community action. Instead of invoking par. 4 as the termination clause, McHardy tried to unilaterally revoke the licence which is not allowed by GPLv2.