Gary Jefferson sent a response to one of my posts on GPL3, thus.

I have just time for a quick comment in reply: I have no inherent objection to open source, or to developers licensing their code however they like. I do think, however, that when some advocates of a certain model present it as morally or functionally superior, however, it is worth taking a look at some of the trends and forces that help shape it. And I do think that a model that is not designed to respond to demand is worth noting. Firstly it is news to some folks in the policy world that ordinary "closed" source market transactions imply some measure of accountability of producer to consumer/user. But secondly to many people in the consumer world, this measure of accountability is quite taken for granted--they won't make note of its absence because they have never consciously realized it is there.

I do agree with Gary that my initial post missed the mark if I implied that Google's response to GPL3 would necessarily be a negative one, Google is rather an unpredictable entity generally on good terms with the OS community. And there isn't much anyone could do to force Google to adopt GPL3-licensed code. But I do think that even if what has been offered is just another option for developers, gently put forward, it still has taken a turn that will cause some to be rather wary in future.