The last call draft of the GPLv3 is at: http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2007-05-31.html
It is fairly easy for most licensees to comply with the terms and conditions in the General Public License, Version 2.0, whether they are users, developers or distributors. The few GPL violations I have heard of generally relate to the copyleft clause where the violators most probably fully deserved to be prosecuted as they failed to make their modifications public.
On the contrary, the scary thing about the proposed GPL is that users, developers or distributors could be hauled up for not so obvious trademark violations. Trademarks are just proprietary shit - you would not want to touch them. Free software has nothing much to do with trademarks, warranties, income tax, sales tax/vat, central excise, and a lot of other things, which may be attracted in various jurisdictions under various circumstances, but do not concern us at all.
Free software packages need and could use only non-proprietary generic names for identification, and inviting people to use trademarks for identifying the package itself is needles and only promotes the proprietary culture. Worse, it could easily be used to defeat copyleft freedom. Clause 7 makes room for clauses, which could be used to force you to use or not use alleged trademarks, and police modifications. The clause has the potential to cause distension in the free software community and the greatest danger is that it would make the GPL irrelevant in the free software community.
TRIPs was negotiated in 1994, much after GPLv2 was published in 1991. After TRIPs, computer programs may be protected only as literary works, and misapplication of patent law to computer programs deserves to be challenged if any of the signatories to TRIPs continue its practice. It is mostly the proprietary software companies that support the illegal practice of "software patents", and any clause in the GPL now, as though "Software Patents" are legitimate, would only operate as estoppel against authors who wish to question the practice in the US, discouraging the use of the GPL. "Software patents" are an illegitimate practice and clauses based on such a practice could only be seen as opposed to public policy.
Today, free software is moving from strength to strength, but the question would be if the GPL can continue to hold its influence in the free software community.
Ramanraj K