>The GPL isn't a contract (in the FSF's opinion anyways), it doesn't restrict any of your rights, it simply grants you a few more. (E.g. to make copies as long as you follow certain rules)
Didn't a court rule a few months ago that it was a contract?
Looks like one did, specifically they ruled that it was both a license and a contract, here's an article on it [0].
I think that just like the ToS example it shouldn't be counted as a contract, and I feel reasonably confident saying leggomylibro feels the same. This isn't a legal judgment on the current state of the law (which I'm not qualified to make), but a moral judgment that contracts shouldn't be able to be created like that.
Didn't a court rule a few months ago that it was a contract?