Apple didn't violate "some GPL technicalities," they took away core rights from the user that the GPL license was designed to provide them.
Whether or not you agree with copyleft licenses, how can you sit there and say that someone is a zealot for wanting to enforce the terms under which they licensed their work?
Besides, it was Apple that removed the software rather than modify the terms of their distribution to allow for GPL software.
>Whether or not you agree with copyleft licenses, how can you sit there and say that someone is a zealot for wanting to enforce the terms under which they licensed their work?
1) Because for a pragmatic (not zealot) guy, the license is just a practicality, not the be all end all. If the license gets in the way of the work getting used, so much worse for the license.
2) Because if we are 10 contributors to a program, have picked GPL, but have no problem with the app being available on the App Store, and some other contributors even do the hard porting work for free, then I could call the 1 of us who disagrees and destroys everything a zealot.
3) In the general case, because the use of GPL for a project could have just as well come from external factors and not because the contributors have some grant vision about GPL/FOSS software. E.g because a few underlying libs they had to use were GPL themselves. In that case, I'd absolutely despise some idiot taking advantage of that to force the hands of the other contributors/users.
Whether or not you agree with copyleft licenses, how can you sit there and say that someone is a zealot for wanting to enforce the terms under which they licensed their work?
Besides, it was Apple that removed the software rather than modify the terms of their distribution to allow for GPL software.