The problem is that even if most of the GPL is very good and rational, the theory that linking another program to a program covered by some license means that the license of the latter becomes applicable to the former is logically inconsistent (because all the methods by which a program can be used are logically equivalent to linking, including the execution of a CLI program from a shell) and in any case even if such a theory could find some legal base, it is certainly abusive and there is no ethical reason that can justify it. By the same theory, if I would write a program to run on MS Windows, my program should become the property of Microsoft.

In my opinion, the only variants of GPL that are correct and the only ones that I would use for my own work, are the former Library GPL and Lesser GPL, which are exactly like the standard GPL, except that they abandon this theory that program linking can unilaterally extend the coverage of one of the licenses of the two programs that are linked.