The FSF defines freedom in terms of the four freedoms: use, modify, copy, distribute. When people started abusing the GPLv2 in ways they didn't think about, th

The FSF defines freedom in terms of the four freedoms: use, modify, copy, distribute. When people started abusing the GPLv2 in ways they didn't think about, they came out with the GPLv3 to protect these freedoms. I think your argument is really with the FSF. There was no shortage of drama when Linus refused to upgrade the Linux license to GPLv3. Tivoization removes the freedom to modify your software (and still have it run). Again, quoting the FSF about tivoization: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”, or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot” — freedom 1 becomes a theoretical fiction rather than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient. In other words, these binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free. I don't know what else to say. The FSF writes, "these binaries are not free software". They're referring to Tivoized Linux binaries. They get to make up the rules here. That includes changing their mind about freedom such that something that was formerly totally free is now less free. FWIW, I'm not advocating for or against GPL software.