> I've talked to a few lawyers and they basically
> consider GPLv3 a contract that isn't worth bothering with.
Presumably they gave you a reason, along with a sizeable bill?
You seem to have misunderstood the intent of the GNU GPL.
The intent is not to help companies.
The intent is to ensure that users (i.e. us) have continued access to Free Software.
How does the 'anti-tivoization' clause help in that?
Imaging you had a device: a TV, a phone, whatever.
It is discovered that the device is actually spying on you; if the device used [1] GNU GPLv3 software you would be entitled to both the source and the keys.
You could then correct this 'mis-feature' and stop the device from spying on you.
If the device used software only under the GNU GPLv2 then you would be entitled to only the source. If the device rejected your attempt to upload new software then too bad.
[1]: A vast over-simplfication, but I hope my point is illustrated.
Presumably they gave you a reason, along with a sizeable bill?
You seem to have misunderstood the intent of the GNU GPL.
The intent is not to help companies.
The intent is to ensure that users (i.e. us) have continued access to Free Software.
How does the 'anti-tivoization' clause help in that? Imaging you had a device: a TV, a phone, whatever.
It is discovered that the device is actually spying on you; if the device used [1] GNU GPLv3 software you would be entitled to both the source and the keys.
You could then correct this 'mis-feature' and stop the device from spying on you.
If the device used software only under the GNU GPLv2 then you would be entitled to only the source. If the device rejected your attempt to upload new software then too bad.
[1]: A vast over-simplfication, but I hope my point is illustrated.