All any of those programmes do is help the mind make physical what is already mental. There are lots of applications (think Fink) that can be put on an iPad and, by the very basis of GPL, protect the users right to distribution and ownership, providing they don't incorporate work protected under the type of scheme GPL uses. Yet, despite use Xorg on an iPad, the license still says that work is Apple's, despite the fact they don't own most of the processing hardware's IP.
See, neither analogy is correct. There's a reason Jobs didn't want to DRM the crap out of everything for distribution, but we have gone a long way since Apple tried to tempt the Open Source Movement with somewhat more liberal licensing to what it has become in the past four or five years.
Try it this way, every Nokia F4xxx camera gives Nokia a partial share of the copyright of any image created with it, regardless of post-production processes involved. Hardware Nokia doesn't own exclusively, software Nokia provides and a functioning platform not created by Nokia that could be ported to run on the camera. Would you think that it's fair that Nokia declare ownership of your work? If you put an image on your free blog from your camera while on your vacation, that blog company may receive a cease and desist order from Nokia because of the advertising which pays to keep it free in the first place can be counted as gross profits. Would they? Probably not, but it doesn't mean that, similar to the history of the RIAA and MPAA suing kids for millions of dollars, Nokia, or a group representing like minded interests, wouldn't start nailing out some test cases to guarantee their right to do so in the future.
I wouldn't buy such a camera with such a condition attached to it, but fans of that line probably wouldn't think twice about it. On the other hand, a following AnonCow may have pinpointed a far greater danger to Apple than displeasing some, MAYBE, 14% of fans: They officially have ownership to all illegal activities so involved. Of course, they can claim the activity is a breach of contract with the EULA, but if multiple breaches are caught, it may go in the direction of selling bongs as tobacco accessories: Enough incidence of its criminal use may result in singling it out legislatively. Of course, unlike stoners, Apple is part of a few lobbying firms who might get legislation written to protect it instead. Because money makes everything fair in a Democracy whose politicians are otherwise incorporated into the Free Market, regardless of being in a mixed economy since the first post-Articles presidential administration.
Anyone still Occupying shit out there? I dunno, it's not on the television anymore. It's probably not that important.