The big discussion was because the latest XFree license(v.1.1) holds a clause that makes it incompatible with GPL, which then might produce massive problems with anything linked to it.
It only produces "massive problems" in the FSF's interpretation of the GPL. I don't share their interpretation of dynamic linking as creating a derived work, and without that interpretation, there is no problem writing dynamically linked applications with the new license.

It's very similar to SCO's claim that writing your code against the UNIX ABI somehow causes it to be a derived work of SCO's code. At least the FSF doesn't try to claim ownership of such code, though.

There is no way around the fact that dynamic linking happens at runtime, on the user's system, and under the control of the user. There is no possible way that a distributor could be held responsible for what a user does with the software. The only thing that could be argued is intent on the behalf of the distributor, if he distributed the GPL binary with linker references to a proprietary library within the same archive or from the same web site. But even that is shaky.

IMO, the dynamic vs static linking distinction should be dropped from GPLv3. It is a source of much confusion and dubious gain, while seeming almost like a EULA clause cloaked in sheep's clothing in that it tries to control what happens on the end user's system. Make no claim whatsoever about dynamic linking, but disallow distribution of statically linked proprietary applications and reserve that for LGPL licensed apps.

Another thing GPLv3 could do is specifically enumerate categories of license clauses which are not part of GPLv3 itself, but are nevertheless considered not to be non-free. Thus when you link software under GPLv3 and another free license, you don't have the silly problems caused by GPLv2's "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." The GPLv2 is preventing software which is under perfectly reasonable free software licenses (even according to the FSF!) from being aggregated with GPL works, simply because they have added a term to their license which is not non-free in the least, but nevertheless "imposes a further restriction" and causes its license to be incompatible with the GPL.

Score:2, Troll