With Noto's OFL licensing, I no longer had that worry.
GPL does not force you to licence your application under GPL.
Instead licensing your application under GPL allows you to use other GPL licensed code.
IE, use GPL code, license header all your own stuff as Apache, distribute the binary as GPL, but anyone else can use your own work under Apache if they want if you are individually licensing all your own files under it, they just could not use the GPL parts without also distributing under GPL.
It's a way to honor the GPL idea for the stuff you link to without having to follow GPL ideas for your new code.
If you wish to use GPL-licensed code, your code must be open source.
If your code is open source, you may use GPL-licensed code.
Both of your wordings are quite neutral, but this one contains in my opinion a quite strong negative element.
For me it was small, but important difference.
Instead, if they choose to adopt those conditions, they get free stuff from me (and a lot of other people.) In other words, it's an incentive program, not a requirement such as a law or regulation.
The GPL requires anything that "includes" it to be GPL compatible. The definition of "includes" that it uses is pretty "iffy" and could easily be extended to include the whole application if you aren't very careful.
OFL has no requirement like that, so you can use it freely in whatever project you want.