My understanding might be wrong, but here my personal key takeaways:
1. The court didn't use the term "security" in the ruling.
1. The Institutional Sale part of of XRP by Ripple still violates security act, and
2. The same XRP can be sold in different ways, in some of the case (e.g. The Programmable Sale), the buyer might hold different expectation and thus does not violate the security act.
3. Giving token without requiring money to be put in doesn't violates security law
And most interestingly, the court established an case law precedent that when a type of token sold in different ways, they could be partially "security" in some case, partially "not [sold as] a security" in some other case.
https://twitter.com/ZainanZhou/status/1679546931234885632?t=g6opzsHEAGvxxBzP8W47wQ&s=19