GPLv2 was created by and for the free software movement. The notion that it is somehow more aligned with a depoliticized, whitewashed ancestor of that movement than it is with the real deal is absurd.
It's absurd, but true. I do think it's unintentional, but due to historical reasons GPLv2 doesn't prevent tivoization, which is more aligned with open source than with free software.
Again, I'm not discussing what the intentions were, nor what the practical effects used to be 20 years ago, I'm referring to it's position today.
Suppose a hypothetical that GPLv2 never existed and that the GPLv3 was written in 1990, then someone came along today and wrote a variant of GPLv3 that specifically permitted tivoization and firmware blobs; surely such a license would be seen as moving from open-source to free software.
Again, I'm not discussing what the intentions were, nor what the practical effects used to be 20 years ago, I'm referring to it's position today.
Suppose a hypothetical that GPLv2 never existed and that the GPLv3 was written in 1990, then someone came along today and wrote a variant of GPLv3 that specifically permitted tivoization and firmware blobs; surely such a license would be seen as moving from open-source to free software.