There is an exception if law forbids the software from being replaceable.

I don't think so. I just read the tivoization section (section 6), and skimmed the rest. The only thing allowed to prevent modifications is if it is physically not designed to do so.

After watching this video [1] my hatred of GPL is at a whole new level. However, couldn't a company skate around the requirement by simply not providing any way to update the system? Or more likely a vendor could provide a way to upload a new version BUT the released source would only account for the base system minus the features that came pre-installed.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

I'm a supporter of GPLv3 so I'll try and give a few counterpoints. His argument wasn't that GPLv3 is a bad license but that, for him, GPLv3 was not a logical extension of GPLv2.

However, Linus's interpretation of the GPLv2 in that video was only coincidentally in line with the FSF at the time. The goal of the FSF has always been to ensure user's freedoms above all else and I feel the GPLv3 better accomplishes that end than the GPLv2. From the perspective of the FSF, hardware manufacturers discovered a loophole in the GPL which allowed people to ship GPL code while denying users their freedoms.

I understand that for many developers there's a balance to be struck. Some developers don't care how their work is used and the MIT, BSD, or DWTFYW licenses are perfect choice for them, but some developers decide that they want to be sure that not only will they get source code back but also that their work wont be used to harm users and they're the perfect candidates for the GPLv3.

* Evil meaning