Comment Re:FSF was very non-specific, and probably wrong (Score 2) 171
The FSF post didn't say either what terms of the license they thought Apple was violating, nor why they think distributing via the app store is any different than distributing via the post office.
The way copyright law defines distribution it essentially means transmit, like over radio and TV or down a wire. There's a very limited exception carved out for passing along transitory copies unaltered so each node on the Internet isn't liable for everything passing through just the source and potentially the sink. Moving a copy physically around never invokes copyright, which is why Apple is on the hook and the post office not. And Apple's software storing it on the user device leads to vicarious and contributory liability if they violate the reproduction right, since they're both materially contributing and profiting from it.
This is pretty much straight up copyright law, not the FSFs opinion. I haven't read up on exactly what beef they have with the app store's terms, but Apple's activity very clearly falls under copyright law.