Well, unless you build your device to specifically deny full access to the owner.
Or when you include fixes for hardware flaws in software. You may be surprised, but in embedded world that's not abnormal case, it's typical situation that you include some software safeguards against hardware faults. This means that you need make it hard to use unauthorized software and if user will circumvent this restriction somehow (most likely be removing some kind of seal) - well, it's his/her choice, your can righteously say that if use circumvented your protection then s/he's on his/her own and warranty is null and void.
GPLv3 breaks this scheme apart: you are forced to offer some way to replace some components of your system (often central components of your system) and even if you'll disclaim the warranty for such a case (GPLv3 explicitly allows that) you still are faced with support calls burden.
But this change itself was not the biggest problem with GPLv3: GPLv3 requirements are not all that onerous per se. Biggest problem with GPLv3 was “I am altering the bargain, pray I don't alter it any further” perception. Which basically poisoned GPL well.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds