I'm objecting to it being called a "right to repair license". It's not a right to repair license. It's a copyleft open-source license. That just happens to be extremely useful for repair because it requires being able to install new versions and have them function, but it isn't a "right to repair license" because it does a lot more than that. :(
but it explicitly says no restrictions can be placed on what you do with the code, so it is entirely correct to say it's a "right to do X" snowclone-license.
no, GPL was designed for right to modify source code with no restrictions on what you could use the modified code for, which would include repair.