You're having a conversation with two different people. I dedicated half of my first paragraph to the issue. skore is who you're responding to in this comment, who has different opinions (valid ones, but they differ from mine).

I do not think that the author's right to choose their own license is a minor point. It think it's absolutely core to everything about the GPL and licensing and copyright in general. The author's right to determine how their work is used is pretty much the most important point.

And, honestly, in my opinion, and the opinion of the law, it makes all other arguments moot. The law is on the side of the creator of the work, and I believe ethics is on the side of the creator of the work, as well. If the creator of the work wants it to be licensed under the GPL, and you disagree, as far as I'm concerned your only ethical response is to not use the code, or write your own and license it however you see fit, or negotiate with the author of the work you want under a different license. As I've mentioned in other threads, I've sold BSD and commercial licenses of my code in the past, and I currently use a dual-licensed model for my products, and many others have done the same over the years.

One other point I've made elsewhere in this conversation, but I'll make again here: Damned near every flame war about the GPL, which this has obviously devolved into, tends to be not about the clarity of the license or whether it can force people to license their code in ways they didn't want (which is what the original post was about, in case anyone has forgotten). It's simply that some people do not like the GPL and disagree with the FSF and its motives. That's fine. But don't pretend you don't understand the license, don't obfuscate the meaning or capabilities of the license to claim that it can "infect" code or that it is "viral" or that a BSD project can accidentally become GPL. That's just more FUD. You aren't "infected" if you use GPL code without abiding by the terms of the license. You are simply in violation of the license, and you have many means to remedy that situation, and no one is going to force you to release all of your code under the GPL, and no one has any legal method to cause you to do so. Code does not magically become GPL just because you accidentally included some GPL code.

That was the point of the original linked article (which is what we're discussing here, let's not forget), and a point I've tried to make clear all along, in various ways.