[fluidcruft]

An iOS device running a third-party download does not constitute a User Product. Otherwise, I don't understand what you're getting at. Yes, there are DRM exceptions in the GPL (mostly to allow use in things like medical devices).

Even if we assume an App by itself constitutes a User Product, then when you purchase an App Store app, you're allowed to install it on your phone (possession) and run it (use)? But that's a big stretch. I'm just trying to understand your point.

[tzs]

The point is that the anti-tivoization provision does not appear to be relevant to IOS devices. The anti-tivoization provision is to stop manufacturers of devices that ship with GPL code from using DRM to prevent use of modifications to that code. It does not seem to prohibit using DRM to lock down GPL code that does not ship with the device.

[fluidcruft]

That's what I thought you were trying to argue and I don't think you're right. Even software that does not ship with the device is covered by the GPL. Because of the new anti-DRM features of GPLv3, there is a new "loophole" that allows a limited locked down for software shipped with the device--essentially protecting some actions that were allowed under GPLv2 from the new anti-DRM provisions present inf GPLv3. While I agree that the loophole does not apply here, that does not at all mean that the rest of the GPL is not in force.

You should read the FSF's position on the App Store. They have stated that it is sufficient to rely on the "no additional restrictions" provisions in deciding that both GPLv2 and GPLv3 software cannot be distributed there. However, sufficiency is not equivalent to necessity and the FSF also mentions that GPLv3 provides additional conflicts specifically related to the App Store DRM.