The license give users the right to copy, and to do modification to GPL software. It also says that users should be allowed to install said modified software on devices which the users has full ownership over.
Apple has the opinion that they should still retain control after a device in sold, giving them practical ownership after sale. This method of corrupting property laws for leverage over other peoples property goes directly against what the author of a GPL software wants, and is such written into license.
Apple with their appstore has thus a fundamental disagreement with the wishes of the author to GPLv3 licensed software. The author can give apple permission on this issue, allowing distribution on the appstore (if Apple accepted it), but that's a copyright concept. Authors can always give permission to someone else about their copyrighted work, but so long the author believes in property laws and peoples right to be in control of their bought devices, its unlikely they will give Apple that extra permission.
Apple has the opinion that they should still retain control after a device in sold, giving them practical ownership after sale. This method of corrupting property laws for leverage over other peoples property goes directly against what the author of a GPL software wants, and is such written into license.
Apple with their appstore has thus a fundamental disagreement with the wishes of the author to GPLv3 licensed software. The author can give apple permission on this issue, allowing distribution on the appstore (if Apple accepted it), but that's a copyright concept. Authors can always give permission to someone else about their copyrighted work, but so long the author believes in property laws and peoples right to be in control of their bought devices, its unlikely they will give Apple that extra permission.