While I am not a lawyer (IANAL) either, it does seem like a weird choice of license. While GPL does have good intentions, it's incredibly restrictive of its compatibility with other open source licenses.
It was good for major projects such as *NIX systems. But in an open source community where Apache 2.0 and MIT becoming more ubiquitous, it tends to add more restrictions than actual freedom to use the source code.
IMO, we shouldn't be forcing other people to comply to GPL. This may hinder adoption and cause potential users to look for a different solution. Instead, we should provide increased flexibility by using a more open license (preferably MIT as it's the least restrictive, widely used, and one of the most compatible license) and then encouraging people to contribute back to the main project.