To me it seems even more complex. The 1st highlighted paragraph imho reads: You have to allow people to tinker with the code and while doing so you are not allowed to disable certain functionality just because of the fact someone tinkered with it.

Otherwise the gplv3 would not be able to prevent tivoization (which was one of its primary goals). To avoid tivoization you must prevent manufacturers from disabling (service critical) components just because someone modified certain code. If you allow manufacturers to do so you again face the tivo issue: The device will just refuse to work after you uploaded new code.

Of course there's a difference between "not working at all anymore" and "doesn't play drm protected files anymore". But you cannot draw the line there as "evil" manufacturers will then draw the border whereever they like and e.g. tivo may still say "hey, hacked units still display the time. they just don't playback any files anymore. so no reason t complain".

Hightlight 2 imho has nothing to do with this. It imho only sais that nokia/intel do not have to provide any guarantee on the parts the hacker modified. Still as of highlight 1 they must not add artifical limitations to the part the hacker did not touch.

To me this means: I must be e.g. allowed to upload a new kernel (regardless of the mode the device is in). Furthermore they must not disable certain functions (e.g. decoding og drm protected files) just because they detect my modified kernel.

I still don't see how they could add drm in a hacking-prevented but still legal way.