Um, no. "You shouldn't have used GPLv3" doesn't have any legal force to
resolve the inconsistency. If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license however I
damn well want, regardless of what the GPLv3 itself says about whether that
is permissible, because the GPLv3 is not binding on *me the copyright
holder*.
If I go to the effort of writing
This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the
prohibition in section 7 of the license on additional restrictions does
not apply and the permission in section 13 is not granted.
then I have *explicitly addressed* the clause in GPLv3 which purports to
prohibit additional restrictions. Which statement is going to take
precedence? At best I've created a lawyer bomb because my intentions are
not clear; at worst I've succeeded in licensing my code in a manner that's
incompatible with the GPLv3. But that's exactly the same problem that we
had with GPLv2, so what was the point of adding this clause?