Distribution under the App Store's terms is a GPL violation itself.
I believe GPL 2 might be ok.
You can also distribute your own GPL software on the app store, it you dual-license it.
But I believe distributing someone else's GPL 3 software is a problem, because as RMS said he realized he had to add freedom zero, the freedom to RUN the software.
Remember that Apple stops you from RUNNING software, then gives/sells you the permission.
> Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store.
As long as Telegram owns the IP for the app, or has contributors sign a CLA that allows for relicensing, nothing is stopping them from distributing the app under the GPL and distributing it under an App Store friendly license.
Taking GPL code that you do not own the IP of, or that you do not have a license to distribute under your own terms, and distributing it under the App Store terms is a violation of the GPL.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-sto...
[2] https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
The GPL issues are more to do with GPL fans being overly pedantic about the license. The source code can be shared outside the app store, the only thing the app store build/signature is doing is baking in the app store wrappers which aren't adding extra functionality. By this logic, distributing a signed build of a GPL app would violate the license.
