* A German court process found that the GPLv2 does have an anti-tivoization clause

* If the FSF published something clearly against the spirit, like "Microsoft can take ownership of your IP", it is not clear a judge would allow this. If it's within the same spirit, like "you agree to allow forks that aren't substantially different to use your trademark", they probably would. Legal loopholes aren't like computer hacking, they are social engineering.

* If I can use it under GPLv2 and GPLv2 allows me to redistribute it under GPLv2, then I can redistribute it under GPLv2. "Or later" means that I can pick a version to comply with, not that I have to comply with all of them simultaneously. So I can always remove the "or later" clause. I can also change it to "GPLv3 or later" since I may choose to comply with any subset of the allowed licenses (here all of them except for GPLv2).