The GPLv3 says:
Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.
“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information.
The Free Software Foundation added these clauses because they did not like that companies like TiVo were able to use GPL'ed software on their devices.
The Open Source Definition has the following requirement:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
The SSPL is not considered an open source license because it is deliberately almost impossible to comply with for hosting providers. Why, then, is the GPLv3 considered an open source license even though it is deliberately almost impossible to comply with for TiVo, Nintendo, Sony, etc.?
On top of that, it doesn't seem like most Linux distro's comply with it either. You can buy a laptop, install Linux on it, create a user account without access to
sudo or equivalent, lock the UEFI/BIOS with a password, and give the laptop away to someone else while only telling them the password for the unprivileged account. It seems to me that the GPLv3 is being violated here, because the user cannot install other software on their laptop. Yet, almost every Linux distro supports unprivileged accounts (GNOME even has parental control settings)! Does this mean almost every Linux distro violates the GPLv3?