> at least in the scenario the FSF opposes the users are able to be more secure
That's quite questionable. What if someone steals the manufacturer keys? Then people with unmodifyable devices would be more secure.
But anyway that's besides the point since FSF is against taking the freedom away from the users under the veil of "security" anyway.
only. the other scenario, "vendor can update I can't" is relevant.
and that detection mechanism is called "secure boot".
Of course they do. One example is pressed DVDs.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
and as per the slide deck this may be a one way operation, creating a brick in the driveway.
I know the slide deck. I've asked automotive oems to think about a dev mode which does drive, but puts the whole car into a dev mode and makes this obvious. too expensive. just kick out gpl3 from anything relevant to homologation.
example: you are a car manufacturer. you have a legal responsibility for the street safety of your car, a responsibility for the functional safety of your product.
now a car crashes, badly, killing people, and blame is put onto the internal software of some on board "electronic control unit", ecu.
how can you ensure the software was not tampered with?
lock it down, secure boot?
then you can't have any gpl3 component on there.
so to allow for personal software modifications you'd need to innovate some mechanism which reliably flags unsigned software changes to the ecu. they need to be reliable enough that even after a crash you can still check if the ecu was running vendor software or some modified version. just like you can check if the brakes or the steering was intact or tampered with.
such legal liability is at the heart of rejecting gpl3 for many devices.
ps: for infotainment it's not about human life but about profit, content tax, a different story.