[kmeisthax]

I would consider GPLv2 satisfied if someone put a link to their source in their App Store description or the app itself, even if that written offer was coming from a different party from the one distributing the source. Both parties are acting in concert with one another to make the same release, and I get what I want regardless. The only practical difference is "who do I sue if someone breaches the three-years requirement".

Judges are allowed to argue that the "equity of the license" prevails over the text in these sorts of cases. If, say, the database lawnmower company decided to sue over App Store distribution of GPL software, the judge is allowed to say "well, the developer is already complying with the offer, they're using Apple's platform to do it, and that gives you what you wanted when you put the software under GPL, which was to have modified source code remain public".

However, you could also sidestep the whole "is a link to a Git repository 'good enough'" question by bundling a source ZIP in the app itself and letting people export it to Files or whatever. That would unambiguously satisfy GPL.