If an author wants, they can leave out the "or any future version" verbiage. If the author does not, then they are explicitly saying that they want their software to be part of whatever future manifesto the FSF puts forth, including the anti-locked-bootloader manifesto present in the GPLv3.

And that's why Torvalds left out "or any future version" when licensing Linux. So I'm not sure why he's "very mad" (I doubt he actually is?); his software remains on GPLv2 like he wanted.

> The point is, nobody should be compelling you to make your products hackable.

If you want to use my GPLv3 software on your product, then yes, I am requiring that you make it hackable. If you don't want to do that, tough shit. Either do so, or freeload off someone else's software.