Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems strange to me that they'd adopt this strategy in the U.S. because of past failures in other countries. Gplv2 makes pretty clear it's a copyright license, so I see no reason it would be interpreted under contract law in the U.S., and as a layperson it seems unlikely that SFC would have standing in this case. Has a third party beneficiary ever been held to have standing in a copyright case?
It is strange, but I have seen in novel court cases where cases in other countries are used as an example. It is possible that they want the court to either confirm that GPL should be treated as a copyright license and not a contract, or that GPL can be seen as a contract in which users has a third-party beneficiary role. When they have that ruling they can use it as an example in countries where a gpl case has yet t…
Do you mean novel court cases in the U.S. referencing cases from other countries? My impression was the U.S. was loath to base legal decisions on those from other countries (with the exception of British common law from before U.S. independence). Contrast this to Europe where the EU has adopted common European courts. It would be less surprising if you were talking about European courts cross-referencing each other.
I just don't know why they'd choose this strategy, except as a hail mary to create a new standing doctrine for software license. Has suing on behalf of the copyright holders proven insufficient in the U.S.?