As the author of a program/library, it just depends on what's important to you. If you want wide use of your code, a permissive license is the way to go. If you want to ensure your users offer the same freedom to users of their modifications that you gave them with the original, then a license like the GPL is the way to go. For you, it sounds like a license more permissive than the GPL would be appropriate. For others, I think a GPL-like license is a valid move.
When you're choosing a library or framework to build on top of, you pick the right tool for the job. Licensing is the same way, they're tools that have appropriate uses some of the time.
Waffling on which is appropriate gets you nowhere. After all, the whole debate around this article is whether Apple choosing one side of this argument is equivalent to a malicious action. To say "Well, the GPL is appropriate sometimes and not in other cases" is completely unhelpful either way, and nearly a tautology anyways.
He's quite clear that he considers GPL and permissive licenses as both non-evil choices, implying that Apple's preference for permissive licenses also isn't evil.
When you're choosing a library or framework to build on top of, you pick the right tool for the job. Licensing is the same way, they're tools that have appropriate uses some of the time.