> When you are distributing a work you must abide by the license. Imagine some CrazyPublicLicense which says that any piece of software distributed within a 5ft radius is considered a derivative for the purpose of the license and must also be CPL licensed work.
No they can't. 'Derivative work' is a legal term. It is defined by the court precedent and legislative law. You don't get to choose the definitions of this phrase. While it's true you can agree to a EULA that places additional restrictions that go beyond the scope of copying/distributing, that is entirely besides the point.
I am guessing that that abusing 'derivative works' term would put the license in jeopardy of being declared invalid... which means that everybody loses their rights to copy the software except the original author.
Needless to say: the GPL limits itself to controlling your copy actions of the code and the copying actions of derivative works in the specific case of distribution.
In all actuality it is very likely that some cases linking GPL libraries by closed source software would be 100% legal (and distributing it), while in other cases linking would not be legal. Also it's very likely that some types of proprietary kernel modules would be legal and others would not. It just depends on the specific circumstances and what the judges decide it to be.
In fact that I am willing to bet that if you tried to claim that your GPL license version would prevent 100% of all use of APIs (or kernel modules, or whatever) by closed source software then that would be actually placing additional restrictions beyond what a true GPL license would have and would make your software subtly incompatible, license-wise, with other software using the true GPL license.