No, but other scopes will also not give you the source code, even when GPL software is used. You can complain all you want, but it will not change much.
Scopes are not forced to give a source code. Manufacturers are.
There seems to be some confusion around the GPL/LGPL. The GPL and LGPL require source distribution for those programs DERIVED, in whole or part, from GPL/LGPL licensed source code. Rigol clearly displays these licenses on their scopes, for example on the MSO5000 in the “Content” menu. However, this source distribution applies only to the GPL/LGPL derived software, it does not apply to original software that operate with other GPL/LGPL software, even in the same hardware environment, including linking.
As such, Rigol’s “scope” is an application running on Linux/Android. Rigol and other manufacturers are not required to release the source to these applications if they are original works, which appears to be the case. And many software packages were offered to developers under dual GPL/LGPL or proprietary licensing models, such as QT. But even with GPL/LGPL licensing, the derived programs (e.g. base OS with modifications) being required to be freely source distributable, the proprietary drivers running in the OS are not. This was a not insignificant motivation for Debian and the elimination of proprietary binary drivers, such as NVDIA’s display drivers.
And some of you may recall the considerable “discussion” around the infectious nature of the GPL which led to the LGPL from the likes of Stallman, Raymond, Torvalds, et al.