Wrong, I don't need a Tivo to use their code.
That is beside the point. This isn't about *you*.
This is about the 99.99% of people who use Tivo code, use it on a Tivo, and as a result they are denied the particular freedoms the original authors of the code it is licensed under intended for them to have.
Granted 98% of them don't care about the license or about changing the code. But the authors of the original code AND the license cared a great deal about it.
A loophole that clearly many authors wanted and have accepted as "by design".
Absolutlely not an outcome the authors of the license wanted. And I'm skeptical you can find any developers who expressly WANTED the GPL for tivoization... i mean if you want that, then use the BSD or something. There are lots of perfectly suitable licenses for that use.
What realistic scenario can you put forth where the developer actively wants to license their code under the GPL and simultaneously doesn't want people to be able to modify the code they received to run on on the equipment the code is installed on?
Seriously. Find one.
And no, Tivo itself doesn't count, they didn't author original code and actively select the GPL... they merely took the GPL code that was out there because it was out there and used it, and ran a legal end run around the authors intentions.
Not everybody who uses the GPLv2 (or any FSF license) subscribes to the FSF ideology,
There does have to be a fairly substantial overlap with FSF ideology though, otherwise you'd pick something else, like BSD.
in fact some of the most prominent ones (Linux for example) explicitly do not.
By "Linux" I assume you mean Linus? And while its clear he disagrees with the FSF on some key points, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that he actively approves of Tivoization. At best I'd say he doesn't like the GPLv3's method of trying to prevent it. But I could be mistaken. I'm not Linus.