It's more that the GPL and the default App Store licensing are incompatible, because Apple essentially asks you to follow the usual DRM and not copy the app.
My understanding was that the GPL and Apple's app store terms were fundamentally incompatible, but I suppose that might only be true of iOS (because of the development tool issues and such).
The GPL is not compatible with the Apple App Store because it contains: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." By submitting an app to the Apple App Store and signing the license an author can grant that right to Apple, but somebody that wants to use the code can't do that...
As far as I'm aware, the issue is that the GPL 2 & 3 stipulate that the freedom to copy, modify and distribute any work based on GPL software should not come with any additional restrictions, and the App Store's terms impose additional restrictions on those freedoms.
I think because Apple sublicences software, GNU GPL–licensed software can't be released on the App Store. Probably other copyleft licenses are similarly incompatible.
That doesn't make any sense, App Store has no relation to what Apple distributes as part of macOS.
Apple takes issue with patents-related wording in GPL3 and doesn't want to be subject to GPL3 (while they're OK with GPL2). Hence not distributing GPL3-licensed software.
I think you are incorrect. See ajross's post lower down on this page to get a better explanation of the reason, the terms of the GPL are at odds with the App Store EULA.
It's not as though Apple is rejecting GPL'd apps. Quite the opposite, the terms of the GPL are what prevent apps licensed under it from being included in the App Store.
Apple doesn't prohibit GPL. It's the other way around, GPL prohibits certain aspects of the App Store distribution model (I forget precisely what). In any case, this is LGPL, not GPL.
reply