[masklinn]

> It was Apple's choice.

Apple's only choice was to remove it, they were never going to create a special set of ToS just for these applications, and they were even less likely to alter their overall ToS to be compatible with the GPL.

[DougBTX]

Even if they were willing to change their ToS as soon as possible, that would probably take a good few weeks of back and forth with their legal department. But a notification of breach of licence probably comes with an "immediate action required" stick, so the only thing they could do immediately would be to remove the app from the store.

[jbk]

Apple's choice was to clarify the ToS, notably to explain if you are able or not to use iOS applications for professional use.

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...

They preferred to plainly remove it.

[Schmidt]

Or they could use their approval process to figure out that the licence was incompatible with their ToS.

[jonhendry]

Why should they pay to evaluate the license someone else chose?

[Schmidt]

Because they are using their software? And the the entity that built the app for the "App Store" was not the sole copyright holder of the software.