GPLv3 effort was made in order to address two main problem. One was that the market dominated manufacturer who held close to 90% of the market was going around

GPLv3 effort was made in order to address two main problem. One was that the market dominated manufacturer who held close to 90% of the market was going around and claiming royalties for claimed software patent in free software, and if I remember right against actually members who participated in the drafting of GPLv3. People saw how a dominated party would distribute GPL software and then go and try shake down same people for patent money, and people were really scared at the time. Quality patents like "1-click" were being fought in courts and companies like Microsoft spent billions, with a capital B, of dollars on patent deals. People did not assume Microsoft just did that for laughs and so the drafting process had a distinct goal of addressing this problem. After gplv3 release Microsoft did halt their claims on Linux users, which could naturally be just a major coincidence. The second concern was that millions of devices with Linux in them would be sold for which users could not modify, share or distribute changes for. This happened beyond what anyone could have imagined. FSF fought and lost that fight, but I am not sure I would have called it a mistake. Mobile phones are full with anti-patterns, have zero security, zero privacy, zero control for the user. Their operational lifespan is a small portion of that open platforms and when the developer cuts updates then the device is unfixable. At any time the device can stop working and ransom the user for a subscription in order to regain operation. It is hard to imagine how those devices could get worse in term of user agency, except if the manufacturer join hands with an oppressive regime.