Per the decision, the un-annotated code is made freely available.[0] The issue at hand is the annotations.
The majority opinion is that the key point is authorship. Officials whose work has the force of law (aka judges and legislators) cannot be authors for purposes of copyright of any work produced in their official capacity as a lawmaker. Their argument is that the annotations are published by the legislative body of Georgia in an official capacity, and therefore are not subject to copyright.
The first dissent disagrees with the majority's interpretation of the government edicts doctrine (lawmakers cannot be authors of, and therefore cannot hold copyright on, works produced in the discharge of their lawmaking duties), finding it too broad and not obvious. The core point is that the type of work matters, and that in this case the type of work is not legislative.
The second dissent argues also that the type of work matters, and that annotations such as those under consideration do not created in a legislative capacity. This agrees with the majority argument about the government edicts doctrine, but disagrees about whether this work constitutes a government edict.
[0] This is mentioned spanning the bottom of page three and the top of page four of the majority opinion (pages six and seven of the PDF):
> In exchange, Lexis has agreed to limit the price it may charge for the OCGA and to make an unannotated version of the statutory text available to the public online for free.
