Honestly this is now getting outside of the range of my own understanding of GPL and licensing law. It *is* complicated stuff, which is unfortunate because it needs to be understood by many "lay" people to really be properly respected. This is part of the problem with the way the GPL is constructed; it asks things of the developer and, in some cases, the user that are not necessarily intuitive. Software use and selection shouldn't be this complicated...
Contemplating the GPL is a dizzying decent into madness.
When it first came out, GPL was very easily understood.
It still is
very easy to understand
It only gets complicated if you try to come up with a way to talk your way around it.
The GPL got "wordy" once certain businesses and people started looking for ways to "legally" beat it. That's when all the verbiage and details started getting added. Not because anybody in FSF wanted it that way. It was because their attorneys determined things needed to be added to the text if there was to be any hope of making the GPL enforceable.
There was once a time when Microsoft argued that GPL was both illegal
because it ran (in their opinion) counter to US commercial, copyright, and IP laws. If I recall correctly, Steve Ballmer even went so far as to say something about it being "unconstitutional." But that's Ballmer for you.
Apparently offering software to the public for free is a violation of the rights of the monopolists to squeeze as much out of the people as possible.
IF the GPL has gotten complicated, thank Microsoft, Verizon, D-Link, Fortinet, TomTom, and all the other jokers who tried (and failed) to find a way to incorporate FOSS software into their own products and not live up to their side of the bargain.