Suppose there exists a software library libfoo distributed under the terms of a hypothetical license we will here call The Foo License (TFL). The terms of TFL are identical to those of the 3-clause BSD license, but with two extra conditions tacked on:
No one by the name of Bob may use this software.
The binary form of this software may not be run on Mondays.
Let us disregard the silliness and potential untenability of this license for the sake of discussion.
Suppose now that I write and hold copyright for a piece of software, let's call it bar, that uses libfoo. None of libfoo's code is copied into bar's source code, but when bar is compiled and linked it also compiles pieces of libfoo and links these into the bar binary.
I am aware that I cannot distribute bar under the GPLv3, as TFL places incompatible restrictions on its non-source form. Can I, however, distribute bar under a license that says something along the lines of Bar is distributed under the GPLv3, with the following exception: a non-source form of this work is under TFL?
My actual intent here is that I'm writing a piece of software that I want to be under the GPL. For the moment, but hopefully not forever, that software needs a library that is under something like TFL to actually perform any useful function in real life. I would like to essentially GPL my source and in the future swap out libfoo whenever it becomes possible to do so, yet not have a non-redistributable binary (violating either the GPL or TFL) in the meantime.