The article manages to ramble on and on without addressing the issue that made this revision to the GPL necessary -- to close a loophole whereby DRM and special-rights laws associated with it could be used to restrict rights that are guaranteed under the GPL (e.g. a digital signature scheme could prevent modified software from running unless the software distributor provided the key needed to produce a new digital signature).
That's not really the point, which is the FSF getting into moralistic activism on the subject.