Not really. GPL3 differs from GPL2 in following things:
1) Patents, i.e. you can't circumvent GPL3 by using GPL software as something you build your software on, but then don't share it because while source code may be available, you patent the code. It was possible with GPL2.
2) DMCA, i.e. you can't circumvent GPL3 with using DMCA which makes circumventing DRM illegal in US. It was possible with GPL2.
3) Tivoization, i.e. you can't circumvent GPL3 using digital encryption, when you release the source code, but not the necessary cryptographic keys.
In other ways, GPL3 is pretty much the same as GPL2. Using GPL3 bash would not make Apple release source code of Mac OS X any more than using GPL2 bash. The only reason not to use GPL3 (1) is when you don't want the three things I listed above taken from you. I would suggest that makes any company with "no GPL3" policy toxic, not GPL3.
