It would if it could

Yes it would.

But the only situation were it would matter is if people are combining your GPLv3+TiVo-exeption with GPLv3 code and then trying to use it on a user-restritive device. Which would be illegal anyways.

Right? I mean it doesn't matter if the exception goes away or not because the people that would want to use your code on a user-restrictive device wouldn't be able to use pure GPLv3 code anyways. They'd still be able to use yours quite easily... but they would have to replace the pure-gplv3 code with something else.

> Worse, if there existed multiple such permission clauses they quite likely wouldn't end up mutually compatible.

One of the things that GPLv3 design goals is to allow exceptions for situations like these.

Because with the GPLv2 there was not any clean and easy way stated in the license saying what sort of exceptions you would or would not be able to take and still have it compatible with the GPLv2 code.

So what happens is that people then go and create their own oddball licenses and quite often do not have the resources necessary to do a very good job of it. So the idea is that you can replace the vast number of so-called OSS-approved licenses with GPLv3 + various exceptions.

It's one of the very positive aspects of the GPLv3, if I am understanding everything correctly.

-----------------------

Basically, if I understand things... if you combine multiple programs with GPLv3+exceptions then the worst thing would happen is you'd end up with something that is the equivelent of pure Gplv3.