> and it might be illegal to use the car on public roads after having reprogrammed the ECU, but neither of those two things are incompatible with the GPL.
Actually I think that would constitute a GPL violation on the part of the government (enforcing additional restrictions on the use of the software), although the government is generally not the one distributing the code (and also good luck holding them accountable even if they were).
You can't violate the GPL if you aren't a party to the license (i.e. if you aren't copying copyrighted works). I don't know if it's a GPLv3 violation to distribute software in hardware that the user can technically buy not legally modify. The license just says this:
> The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
> > that would constitute a GPL violation on the part of the government [if the government were the ones distributing it] [...]
It would be nice to close this loophole (prevent or at least disincentivise the goverment from making such laws), but it's not clear how that could be accomplished.
Actually I think that would constitute a GPL violation on the part of the government (enforcing additional restrictions on the use of the software), although the government is generally not the one distributing the code (and also good luck holding them accountable even if they were).