@Andreas Nurbo -
Eh no. 4 people contributed more than 50% of the patches for WP 3.0.
Yeah, and they did so on the basis that anyone who want to build upon their code and distribute the results would be subject to the same license. The vast majority of users do not build upon or re-distribute WordPress code but, when they do, they are subject to the license.

As for your "no its not" response on the nature of the GPL, seriously, I am not going to take lessons on Open Source licenses from a self-confessed affiliate marketer; please note my reference, above, to parasites of all types and all levels of scumminess.

I have noticed your vicious little stabs against WordPress in comments elsewhere online, you probably feel that this crusade is a smart way to market yourself. Before you completely sell your soul, however, you might rethink the road you have taken and consider some gentle advice from of the much-missed Bill Hicks.

@that girl again -
You can’t ‘steal’ something that’s already been given to you. Misuse and exploit, yes. Steal, no. Apart from that, your comment is the best illustration of the Marxist nature of the GPL I’ve seen so far.
Actually, you're wrong: under current U.S. law, it is theft to use software or various other media outside the terms of the license under which it is distributed - I would link to the Wikipedia article on the DMCA but using 2 links in a comment kicks it into the moderation queue.

Beyond deeply flawed American legislation, however, there is the simple principle that if someone offers you their work on the clear condition that you do something and you take their work but you fail to do that thing, that is theft. Caveman A says to Caveman B, I will lend you my arrows for the hunt as long as you share your catch with the rest of the tribe, Caveman B uses the arrows but later refuses to share his catch = theft.

You don't have to like the GPL but it does have the virtue of being extremely clear: if you don't want to share the deer you catch, don't use those arrows.

@John -
Chris and many others feel that a theme does not modify core WordPress code
You need to catch up - this particular incident has moved beyond the old arguments about whether a theme makes sufficient use of WordPress code for the GPL to apply, that all became moot when it became clear that actual code had been copied and pasted into Chris' product. That is the basis on which Matt was going to sue, he said as much in Jeff's "Where is Matt" interview, nothing to do with the far vaguer , more general argument you allude to.