> there is no way around this truth
Of course there is because it's simply not true.
For example, the conditions in GPLv2 make it impossible to combine GPLv2-only software with Apache or with AGPL software. Thus, GPLv2 has a restriction that GPLv3 does not. As another example, GPLv2 has fewer methods for conveying source code than GPLv3, and thus it is more restrictive.
But beyond this nitpicking on the meaning of "restrictive", let us look at the real thing most people object to about GPLv3: the anti-tivoisation clause. Let us remember what it actually is about: along with the source code, you must convey any cryptographic keys necessary to allow the modified version to run. This is very similar in spirit to the same clause that requires you to convey installation scripts. In other words, it has always been the responsibility of downstream users to make sure that everyone can use the software.
It really is not a crazy restriction to ensure that people convey the necessary data in order to ensure the software can be installed. In fact, that's why GPLv3 calls all of this (install scripts, authorization keys and so forth) "Installation Information". GPLv2 already had this condition. GPLv3 merely added clarification of what "installation information" means. This clause also only applies if you are distributing the software together with the hardware ("User Product").
GPLv3 is more widely feared than understood. So, understand it, and help others understand it too.