The governments of the world are criminalizing otherwise legitimate business by enacting laws that make the cost of doing business such that actually complying would put them out of business.
The business of government is regulation (and taxation). This is not news, it's been the way of government since probably before the Roman empire. It is a business risk, I hope you identified it and planned appropriately.
Now the FCC is passing a law that is going to *outlaw* for all practical purposes my business. Is there intent good? Sure. I want to be able to use the airwaves and we need some regulation. However banning free software doesn't solve the problem of stopping a small number of people (the ones intent on breaking the law) from continuing to violate the good rules.
Regulations never stop the small number of people intent on breaking the law - that is not their purpose, it is to reduce the larger number of people who accidentally break the law because it is easy to do so and easy to claim ignorance "all I did was... how is that illegal". The gun laws in my country do not stop criminals (the ones intent on breaking the law) from getting hold of guns, they make it harder, more dangerous, more expensive maybe, but really they only prevent ordinary law abiding people. But they work. Ordinary people are not armed. Result: police are not routinely armed, Result: US police shoot and kill more people in a typical _day_ than ours do in a typical _year_, about 50 times fewer accounting for population size. But the people intent on breaking the law can still get guns, the laws do not stop them.
Secondly, the FCC regs as I understand it do not ban free software, rather they ban modifiable devices. Devices may still be made with free software, but must be locked down in some way. That may require redesigning your software to lock down only the bits legally required, or locking down the device - your choice.
Should everybody involved in GNU/Linux just stop shipping product and go out of business? Those who don't are outlaws. Either they follow the law, lock down devices, and violate other laws on copyright, or they stop shipping there product!!!!
Ah, you must be talking about GPLv3 software. Linux itself is ok - it is v2 - you can ship a locked down Linux device.
For other GPLv3 software, I think you are reading the GPL incorrectly. There is no "either/or" in S12, you MUST stop shipping because that is what the GPL says, there is no option to not comply with the conditions and not lock down - you would still violate the GPL (IMO, IANAL, and I am not in your jurisdiction).
"if conditions are imposed on you [...] that contradict the conditions of this license [...] you may not convey it at all."
Again, there is no option to not comply with those other conditions, it is the imposition of the conditions whether you comply or not (and likely even if the conditions exist in law but are not generally enforced) that triggers the clause.
Even the FSF has referred to this as a "liberty or death" clause. The GPL has always been a political license, intended to subvert copyright (and patent) law by using it against itself, some conflict with the law is inevitable and when the law wins the GPL software dies. Your business is a pawn in someone else's bigger political battle. That is by design, clearly inherent in the license of the software you chose to use - other Free Software does not have this issue, with BSD of course you wouldn't have a problem complying with the law.
But of course you know all this from back whenever you chose GPL over BSD etc., and when you assessed the relative risks of each license and regulation (and the risk of gplv3 conflicting with regulations was known before gplv3, because I knew and I am damn sure I wasn't the only one to raise it in the consultation), and before you bet your business on it. So, I am just reminding you that you took a risk - some you win, some you don't, that's business. If you didn't consider the risks, well that's more like gambling, some you win most you don't.
There are still ways round it even within the GPL. GPL allows software in ROM, for example - might be more expensive but hey, regulation has a price, just like the FDA keeps you safe from all those dangerous Canadian drugs, that are exactly the same chemical but oddly much cheaper...
The other way is to restrict/re-target your products to business markets, because GPLv3 allows locked down devices for business/professional users (or more exactly, the anti-lockdown provisions _only_ apply to personal/family/household devices). You might want to ponder why that is, I don't know but I am pretty sure rms didn't just wake up one morning and think hey lets add a field-of-use restriction (which is what it is), after years of arguing against such. More likely some large commercial interests who sell stuff to business users and didn't want to end up in the same position as you and lobbied rms to give them an exception. They refused to be the pawn, because when it's liberty or death, pawns get sacrificed. If you think that interpretation is wrong, then explain why business/professional users do not get the same protected freedoms as home users under the GPL. If you think it stinks, then welcome to the club - it is one of the main reasons v3 put me off GPL (not the anti-tivo clause per se, but the fact it only applies to some fields of use, whilst claiming to be there on principle).