Freedom != Do or use as you want. More specifically, Free Software != Software which, you can, use it however / do with it whatever, you want.
People still don't understand the definition of Free Software.
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
The only reason why someone (Apple) wouldn't want to use/include GPL licensed software is, they don't intend to support or keep the software FREE (as in FREE speech).
The GPL license might imply some restrictions into how you want to distribute the software, but this restrictions are only for the software to STAY free. Now, I'm not gonna monger here about software patents reforms, but let's make it clear, GPL is not bad nor evil. It's your choice if you want or not to use Free Software, but if you do, you are only asked to play by the rules.
This kind of decisions alarm me, as a user. If there's something wrong with the open source Samba implementation, they could fix or improve it. I don't see any good reason (from the user point of view) to redo the implementation and make it closed proprietary software. They could as well create an alternative free implementation, under a license that suites their distribution needs.