"Participation in this program, along with necessary legal advice and training, ..."
In other words, the program's useless, since it's not a substitute for legal advice (despite the stated claim of helping to "keep software and device makers on the right side of open-source licensing law").
GPLv2 is pretty clear except on the definition of a derived work, and that's the only thing that's of any interest to the average user. The cost of getting some legal clarity on that could easily outweigh the cost of buying in a commercial solution. GPLv3 is so restrictive that no sane device maker will be using it anyway.
@ElReg: the BusyBox/WestingHouse case is not, I think, nearly as significant as you're making out. BusyBox filed against 14 defendants in December; Westinghouse failed to respond, since they're bankrupt. The other cases will be much more interesting.