You’re right, the first four paragraphs, at least, are on the pompous side, but once the article starts getting into the subject, it improves.

The audience, presumably, is as the title suggests: anyone interested in our collective “Right to Install Under Copyleft & GPL” licenses.

The gist of this post is to make it clear that the GPLv2, both today and since its inception, requires not just the distribution of pure source code, but also of any information necessary for allowing end users to replace the manufacturer's binaries with their own modified versions.

For example, if you sell a Linux appliance, Linux's GPLv2 license mandates that an end user must have a way of installing their own kernel on said device. This may void the warranty, it may prevent your proprietary code from running, it may disable secure boot or anything like that, but it must be possible, and the manufacturer must tell the user exactly how to do it *.

For a concrete example of a vendor complying with this, since the PS3 runs Linux, then Sony had an official way of turning your PS3 into a Linux box running a newer kernel. If you did this, you were no longer able to run the proprietary Sony components, nor any games, and I think it may have even wiped some parts of the drive - and that's perfectly fine. But they did have to provide those instructions and capability, and they did.

Many people believe that this requirement only applies with the GPLv3 or later, but this post argues that is false. The difference with the GPLv3 is that the device manufacturer is not allowed to disable their proprietary software on the modified device. So, if Linux had been under the GPLv3, not GPLv2, Sony would have been forced to let users still play games and connect to the PSN even if they were running a custom Linux kernel on their device.

*: The only exception is for devices where even the manufacturer is unable to do this change, say where the OS is read from ROM, so there is no update process whatsoever.