> It added the tivoization clause which prevents companies from selling hardware to you with GPLv3 code and not allow you to run your own modified version of the code on said hardware.
That depends on who "you" are. In the FSF's view some users are permitted to want to purchase hardware that can't be tampered with, and others are not.
Please don't spout this false old lie. Its been correct a few hundred times already on HN, so how can you have missed it?
If the tamper proof hardware resist modification by everyone (including the people who produce/sell them), GPL is perfectly fine with it. Sell it, bake it, do what ever you want. However, if a producer want to sell tamper proof hardware which they exclusively have a way to tamper with, its not tamper proof and it is not fair to the person who bought it. At minimum, give the owner of the device the same right to do modifications.
If you want to quibble over the wording describing the exact combination of features the FSF is willing to allow some users the freedom to choose to have served by products with GPL-licensed software from anyone but the copyright owner, but where they would deny that freedom to other users, you are missing the point of the objection.
Is your argument that giving someone else exclusive control of things you own is a feature? I guess a thief could argue that stealing stuff from people house is a feature too.
GPL denies people to circumvent property rights of the devices owner - ie, the person who bought it. If you object to stopping such activities, I hope you don't object when people circumvent other laws.
There are three possible, reasonably coherent views of the anti-tivoization clause I can see:
1. Either the restrictions it places on device features in the consumer market are essential to software freedom, in which case GPLv3 segregates markets and prioritizes something else over essential elements of software freedom in the business market, or
2. The restrictions it places on device features in the consumer market are not essential to software freedom, and the GPLv3 segregates markets and imposes restrictions on what can be done with GPL-licensed software in ways that restrict rather than promote freedom in the consumer market.
3. Or "software freedom" means different things in different markets.
My personal view aligns more with the second of those options, but I wouldn't be happy with any of them.
> Is your argument that giving someone else exclusive control of things you own is a feature?
If it is in the business market (where the FSF seems to think it is) then it is in the consumer market.
> GPL denies people to circumvent property rights of the devices owner - ie, the person who bought it.
It would be more accurate to say, for what it defines as "User Products", that the GPLv3 actively encourages device renters to circumvent the property rights of devices' owners, and bars device owners from having the technical tools to prevent that.
1: A license that do not allow circumvention of property law is friendly to the business market. As such, your claim that it would prioritize "something" over "essential elements of software freedom" are wrong.
2: Not allowing circumvention of property law is neither promotion or restriction of freedom. It has the same purpose such as anti-theft laws. business markets depend on property law, and could not operate without it. However, selecting enforcement of property law can be exploited in the market, and a segregation between those who exploit and those who don't then happens.
3: anti-theft laws and "software freedom" are not directly related. This is where the confusion comes from.
> It would be more accurate to say, for what it defines as "User Products", that the GPLv3 actively encourages device renters to circumvent the property rights of devices' owners, and bars device owners from having the technical tools to prevent that.
You seem to imply that manufacturer are the device owner after they have sold the device. Here we must come to a disagreement, as I follow the classic view that a trade results in a change in ownership. The financial transaction causes the manufacturer to assign ownership of a specific device over to the buyer in exchange for money. The new owner of the device is thus no longer the manufacturer, but the person who paid money for it.
Maybe the wikipedia article, or a dictonary would help you here. Renting is not the same as a trade. I can see how you might get those two words confused, but really, they are not the same thing.
If device manufacturers want lease out devices rather then trade them, they can likely do so without having comply with the requirements in the GPLv3 license. Leasing out devices is commonly not viewed as distribution (case law lacking).
> You seem to imply that manufacturer are the device owner after they have sold the device.
No, that's irrelevant.
> If device manufacturers want lease out devices rather then trade them, they can likely do so without having comply with the requirements in the GPLv3 license.
The anti-tivoization clause specifically applies to transfer of a "User Product" with the right to possession and use of the device either permanently (sale) or for a period of time (rental).
That depends on who "you" are. In the FSF's view some users are permitted to want to purchase hardware that can't be tampered with, and others are not.