The point about GPLv2 is that it's not entirely an agent for the FSF four freedoms which is one of the big reasons the FSF went to GPLv3. The other point I made is that really all we need to make Linux successful is the quid pro quo give back. We don't need the GPL to do this, but it was certainly the first to try.
That the give back requirement represents a significant requirement for freedom I won't dispute, it certainly restricts the rights of the original author (but then so does placing stuff in the public domain). However, my essential argument is that this is a pragmatic rule to live by rather than a statement of "freedom" principles.
I'd also dispute the fact that the GPL is "aggressive". You can put aggressive derivation constructions on it, but they do depend on a definition of derivation that has never been addressed in case law, so it's not a given position. I also argue that the give back requirement will work whether the ultimate construction of derivation turns out to be aggressive or conservative.
If you want to see the whole talk by the way, LinuxMagazin.de now has it on line: