Opening up the 'COPYING' file from that distribution:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Apple is scrupulous at ensuring that they only distribute GPL Version 2 software, if at all (they've made efforts to switch to using BSD licensed software wherever possible).
There's no reason for bash people or FSF to sue Apple as they are strictly following the license.
Apple’s violation of GPL has nothing to do with which version they’re using and everything to do with failing to provide source code promptly that matches the OS they’re shipping.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. You're making the claim that Apple is violating the GPL by not publishing the source of the bash. When shown the open source repository that Apple provides to comply with the license you wave it off and suggest that the binary that Apple provides isn't compiled from that source.
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that bash on a Mac is not what is build with the source there? If so, I am sure that the FSF would love to have an easily winnable lawsuit against a big company that goes in favor of the GPL. That the FSF hasn't done so in a decade and a half suggests that there is no license violation.
It’s literally at the top of this thread! Apple for years provided source code that didn’t compile because they considered some of their proprietary additions as “secret” and failed to include those headers. If you want more evidence of this being a regular occurrence, I have plenty of examples where Apple leaves security features out of the sources intentionally. Or you can look at WebKit, which is LGPL for many components but whose public source code has an explicit gap (search for “WebKitAdditions”) where Apple violates the license by shipping code in their OS that is not included.
Bash is part of the GNU project. As a consequence, I believe contributors assign their copyright to the FSF. I downloaded a random release of bash 3 (3.0.16) and opened a random C file from it and it is indeed "Copyright (C) 1993-2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc."
I appreciate that individual developers might not have the time & energy to engage in a lawsuit against Apple, but the FSF is bigger, and has all the incentive to be firm with the terms of the GPL licenses for the licenses to look strong. Developers can also certainly request help from the Software Freedom Conservancy [1] or the Software Freedom Law Center [2] (which has helped BusyBox win several lawsuits) for this kind of stuff. Apparently the SFLC has helped the FSF in the past, against Cisco, if I'm to believe [2].
https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/ has version 3.2.57.
Opening up the 'COPYING' file from that distribution:
Apple is scrupulous at ensuring that they only distribute GPL Version 2 software, if at all (they've made efforts to switch to using BSD licensed software wherever possible).There's no reason for bash people or FSF to sue Apple as they are strictly following the license.