Imagine if the situation was the other way around and a CPU came with a hardware license agreement prohibiting any software that ran on it from validating hardware attributes, using encryption to communicate only with certain other pieces of hardware, or for that matter, any restrictions at all. All in the name of enabling hardware developers to tinker with their hardware without those pesky software developers getting in the way with their pesky encryption.

> Is it anti-tivoization that restricts the rights of hardware developers, or does copyright law do that?

In the way that all copyleft enforcement requires copyright, then yes… but what does that have to do with anything?

I think Linus was spot on about the FSFs scope creep when he said:

“The kernel license covers the kernel. It does not cover boot loaders and hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware can design them any which way they want.”