Restrictions on medical devices are very reasonable though. They aren't something people can freely hack on. Errors can cause decisions to be made based on incorrect information, expose people to radioactivity...
Even the GPLv3 makes an exception for this class of device.
> Even the GPLv3 makes an exception for this class of device.
Citation very fucking needed, because exceptions for specific fields of work directly contradict the underlying principles of the GPL, and indeed [0] contains no occurence of the word "medical".
> A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.
The anti-tivoization text in the license applies to these User Products. Medical devices are not included in the definition.
If it's "normally used for personal, family, or household purposes" or "designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling", then anti-tivoization applies regardless of whether it's medical in nature. Conversely, if it's not either of those, then it's not a "consumer product", also regardless of whether it's medical. There are problems with that section, but "GPLv3 makes an exception for medical devices" is not one of them.
This makes no sense, GPL is a big aid, but not a prerequisite to enabling custom repairs. And vice versa, having access to the source code of an x-ray machine doesn't increase risk of modification. Device can still block FW updates based on signatures.
Even the GPLv3 makes an exception for this class of device.