How? You don't have a right to modify the device you purchased. You don't have a right to manufacture a clone of the device and run your patched code on it. The vendor can happily decline patches from you. So can Linus.
All you will have is the right to inspect code they used and learn from it or reuse it in a lightbulb you choose to manufacture that doesn't violate some other IP the original vendor has on the original bulb.
There is absolutely nothing about the GPL that grants you any particular freedom regarding the specific light bulb you purchased. If it sucks, it will continue to suck.
Actually, at least in some jurisdictions, you do. What you don't have is an obligation that device vendor helps you - unless they took some obligations to do so (and GPL is one).
But it's entirely another story that they had chosen to use GNU or Linux bits in their software.
I absolutely have every right in the world to do whatever I want with any device I own (baring things like tweaking WiFi to violate FCC rules). Why would you even say that?
Yes. In fact, isn't this exactly why GPLv3 has the anti-TiVoization clause? Because TiVo under GPLv2 were entirely in their right to deny user-modified GPL-licensed software from running on their hardware.
Under GPLv3 you have the right to modify the device you purchased if the manufacturer (or the person you bought it from) has the same ability. Linus doesn't like the GPLv3 for what appears to be I-dont-care-about-user-freedom reasons, which is why only parts of the kernel are under GPLv2-or-later. But that's the main reason why I make all of my projects GPLv3, so that users are protected in this instance as well.
Maybe proprietary software companies are happy with the current situation, but as a user who cares about my freedom, I'm very unhappy with the current situation.
> Becoming more militant about enforcement will simply cause most corporate partners to disengage.
Maybe people should spend less time feeling sorry for corporations and more time considering users. If you're someone who has a shitty Bluetooth light bulb running a version of GNU/Linux, the person who has given you that device has taken away your software freedom and everything that comes along with that. Having software freedom means you can completely eradicate vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence from the technology you use, as well as being able to create a community and help yourself and others as a result. Not having software freedom means that you are alone as a user of a product, at the mercy of the company that gave you that device.
You see this all the time, and it worries me that it takes Matthew Garrett posting about how insecure this stuff is for people to even _consider_ that there is a serious user-facing problem here. Yes, IoT is generally not doing well, but there are legitimate uses of this stuff (people who have disabilities for example) and not caring about their software freedom is a serious social issue.
> Most users comply with the license. Users have access to interesting and useful source code and have never been restricted from accessing the kernel.
The GPL has no restrictions on end users. It only has restrictions for distributors, to ensure that any eventual end user of a piece of software will have software freedom and all of the benefits that come with that.