Not in the license recommendations or the FAQ though is it - which was the point.
I'm aware of the passage from 3rd draft (which is not in the final rationale), as far as I am concerned it is a sell out to big corporate lobbyists. It basically says: some big corporate suppliers and users thought the status-quo (tivo-allowed) was the correct interpretation and therefore we'll exempt them from requirement to give their users this freedom. Seems some users are more free than others ? I wonder if they asked any of the end-user consumers who thought tivos interpretation was correct, or do those users not count because they are not big-corp? I wonder if they spoke to any small business users (the vast majority of businesses are small after all) about whether or not there saw any "disparity in clout" if they had a say half-million budget and were negotiating with, say, SAP, or Oracle ?
The final rationale says something about extending the provision (another incompatible GPL version and further balkanisation of the GPL world) if problems appear in currently exempted areas. Wonder what the big corporate lobbyists thought of that - "well we'd better be good" or "right we've bought a few years to get ourselves off this GPL stuff" ? Who they were is left unsaid, but various possible suspects are currently now pushing LLVM etc.
And it is not "a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device.", it is "a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device in one field of use" - devices in other fields of use being conveniently exempt from compliance. If you can't comply (say because of contractual, legal or regulatory obligations) then it is a field of use restriction.