I'd also say there is a pretty clear tree of an argument re: the "everything must be libre only" line:

1. Are you a developer? Do you want to use your code later in project that you may not control?

2. Do you use non-GPL software? Like X/Wayland?

3. Do you use proprietary software? Why does a game dev deserve to get paid when that logging software upon which your company depends does not?

4. You're not any of the above -- are simply a user that wants FOSS firmware? What has libre-Linux done for you on this front? The answer is nothing. Except keep ZFS out of the kernel, because... reasons? More open firmware will happen. However, not because of legal reasons, but because FOSS arguments for transparency and market forces.

I'm not saying your choices are wrong. They are your choices after all. I'm saying they're not the only possible choices.

Re: 1, legally speaking, GPL does virtually nothing to prevent an ML model more than, say, MIT. It's a problem for all FOSS licenses. FSF/GPL really don't represent all of FOSS. As someone else noted, GPL is the 3rd most popular FOSS license. I'd add -- for a reason.

Re: 2, I know less about this, but from what I do know, legally speaking, this seems like a trademark problem, not a copyright or license issue.

I'm saying, in some sense, you've already won. If you want to fight about trademarks and other IP, God bless, please do. Just please don't think adopting the most extreme position re: your license choice endows you with some heightened dignity over someone who just made a different choice.