For the last 10 years, and intensively for the last 5 years, individuals, corporate entities (profit and non-profit), and businesses (some of them very large, such as IBM) have been behaving as if the GPL means what Stallman and Moglen say it means.  That is, following the intent of the creation.

I have a very hard time seeing any court stepping in and saying, oh, these millions of people and thousands of businesses around the world were wrong, and we are going to interpret this agreement according to a set of principles that neither its author nor those using it intended.  (Unless this fix is in, of course, which is possible in these giganto-dollar cases.  But very hard to pull off).

The SCO Group took a shot at the foundation of the GPL.  They seem to have backed off from that line of attack at this point.  Unless TSG wins a big victory and Kimball explictly rejects the intent of the GPL in his decision (I am assuming here this case will never actually get to a jury, which would complicate things), I think this worrying is useful but a bit overwrought.