You used the thought experiment as the foundation for the anti-anti-tivoization sentiment expressed. If the thought experiment is false, then the sentiment which might rest upon it is without basis.

> The point is, nobody should be compelling you to make your products hackable. If you don't want to, that's your prerogative.

I agree.

Nobody is compelled to use GPLv3 code in the appliances that they want locked-down for whatever reasons (whether good or bad) they may wish to do that. There's other routes (including writing it themselves).

They may see a sea of beautiful GPLv3 code and wish they could use it in any way they desire, like a child may walk into a candy store and wish to have all of it for free, but the world isn't like that.

We're all free to wish for whatever we want, but that doesn't mean that we're going to get it.

> But this whole "Or any future version" clause gave FSF carte blanche to just alter the deal and suddenly make it so anyone can fork a project and make it GPLv3.

This "Or any future version" part isn't part of the GPL -- of any version.

Let us review GPL v1: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.en.html

> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of the license which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

The GPL itself does not in any way mandate licensing any code under future versions. An author can elect to allow it -- or not.

If they specify GPL 2, then they get GPL 2. Not 3. Not 4. Only 2.

Other versions of the GPL are ~the same in this way. (You know where to find them, right? They're easy reads.)