Anti-Tivo License (ATL) v1.0

Copyright © cppfastio 2025

Background

The concept of Tivoization was first introduced by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to describe a practice where manufacturers use free software but restrict users from modifying it. The term originates from TiVo, a digital video recorder company that used Linux and GNU software but implemented hardware restrictions to prevent users from running modified versions.

FSF responded to this issue by introducing GPLv3, which explicitly prohibits Tivoization. However, while FSF focuses primarily on open-source software, our goal with ATL is broader: we prioritize openness over just open-source.

What ATL Stands For

ATL is NOT against commercial use—it is against the loss of basic device rights.
Every user should have the ability to install, modify, and run software freely, without platform-imposed limitations. ATL enforces the following principles to protect user and developer rights:

1. Preventing Tivoization

• If a device includes an app store, it must allow users to install modified versions of software without restrictions.
• Manufacturers must not use cryptographic locks or hardware verifications to prevent users from modifying and reinstalling software.

2. Prioritizing Cross-Platform Technologies

• Whenever PWA (Progressive Web Applications) or Wine is viable, developers and manufacturers should prioritize them to ensure openness and portability.
• If a platform intentionally disrupts open internet browsing (e.g., restricting PWA functionality for monopoly reasons), all software on that platform must be licensed under GPLv3, ensuring users’ full modification and installation rights.

3. Exemptions

No devices are exemptions. Not even medical devices.

4. Enforcement & Non-Mandatory Action

• The license holder reserves the right to enforce ATL but is not obligated to do so.
• Enforcement actions may be taken against platforms engaging in Tivoization or deliberately undermining open internet access.
• This license is not subject to any government regulations, including but not limited to the U.S. government.

Refuting Apple's Sideloading Arguments

Apple has repeatedly justified its ban on sideloading with security concerns, particularly in its report "Building a Trusted Ecosystem for Millions of Apps: A Threat Analysis of Sideloading". Apple argues that sideloading would:

1. Increase malware risks by allowing users to install applications from unverified sources.
2. Reduce user security and privacy by bypassing App Store protections.
3. Encourage fraud by making it easier for malicious apps to impersonate legitimate ones.

However, these claims are misleading and ignore obvious solutions that preserve both security and openness:

• Sideloading Can Be an Opt-In Feature
  Apple could simply offer an "Open Mode" that allows experienced users to install apps freely.

• Malware Prevention Is Possible Without App Store Monopolies
  Operating systems already have built-in security features like sandboxing, app permissions, and malware detection. Apple’s insistence on banning sideloading is a business decision, not a technical necessity.

• Restricted PWA Support Is a Sign of Monopoly, Not Security
  Apple also limits Progressive Web Applications (PWA) on iOS, forcing developers into its App Store instead of allowing truly cross-platform, open web apps. If Apple were truly committed to user choice, PWA would be fully supported rather than crippled.

Why ATL Matters

Software freedom isn’t just about open-source—it’s about the fundamental right to use your own device.
ATL ensures developers can protect their projects from being locked into proprietary ecosystems, while giving users the ability to control their own hardware and software—something that should never have been taken