Please stop this nonsense!
I linked to the GPLv3 to read, specifically terms #2, #3 and #6, plus this paragraph in the preamble:

Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

This is no "interpretation", it is what the license states and what the FSF deliberately intends (and clearly states so)!
And it is the reason why Google, Jolla and many others avoid *GPLv3 code like hell.

This is nitpicking, but yes, while as museum definitely "transfers the right to use" its explanatory, fixed touchscreens to visitors, it does not "transfer the right of possession" for these.
But as soon as the visitors are provided with tablets for that purpose (had that in a Dutch museum) the "right of possession" for these is transferred to their users (note, that "owning" a product is not necessary!), as with centrally administered computers, MDMed tablets and phones etc. in companies, government offices and many other use cases (i.e., most non-private ones).
The latter are the use cases Jolla, Google have to respect, if they want big licensees for their software stacks.

Sorry, who is spreading "alternative facts" here?
Please, try to disprove my statements by quoting the GPLv3 or shut up.

P.S. / edit: For me the *GLPv3 family of licenses are "unfree" licenses, which should never have been OSI-approved, because they factually restrict the absolute "Freedom to use" by ultimately stating, "one may use *GPLv3 software to create lock-down mechanisms, but then must provide users with means to circumvent them", which renders lock-down mechanisms useless in the first place.