It wasn't an explicitly stated goal, but thats exactly what those freedoms were meant to do. Atleast in regards to the software being provided under the license

It wasn't an explicitly stated goal, but thats exactly what those freedoms were meant to do. Atleast in regards to the software being provided under the license. They just didn't foresee a future where computers would refuse to run a modified version of the code they came with. Remember, the impetus for GNU was a closed source printer driver that rms wanted to modify, and was not allowed to. This jives well with Linus's intention of "I give you software to do whatever you want with, and if you make improvements you have to give them back" Except the GPL does not require you give any improvements back. It only requires that you give the same freedoms to whoever you give the improved software to. That is, the end users. There are plenty of enterprise "appliances" that come with modified GPL code that is only given to the companies that pay for these computers. That is perfectly within the spirit of the gpl, because it's goal is to give the end users freedom. edit: What else would be the point of "that you can change the software" without having a means to run it?