Bruce Sewell: "Well, the FSF is the copyright holder and it's under the GPL license, so they're 'asking' us to put the entire App Store in 'compliance' with their license."
Steve Jobs: "You're kidding me. Are they nuts? Look, there can't be more than five applications on there using GPL code on there, can there?"
Bertrand Serlet: "You wouldn't need my hands and yours to count them all, that looks like a good estimate..."
Steve Jobs: "Are any of them any good?"
Bertrand Serlet: "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! No."
Steve Jobs: "Well, what's the problem? They say their copyright is infringed, did they file a proper cease-and-desist?"
Bruce Sewell: "No, they put up a web site claiming they were conducting an 'enforcement action' against us."
Steve Jobs: "'Enforcement'? What the hell do they think they can 'enforce' against us?"
Bruce Sewell: "Well, whatever they think, the only thing they can enforce is their copyright."
Steve Jobs: "On some crappy free Go program? There are good Go programs for the iPhone. Okay, screw those bozos. Take the app down, and tell the developer that they misled us on its salability. If they don't like that, they can sue the FSF."
Bruce Sewell: "Yeah, makes sense."
Steve Jobs: "And look into changing the FOSS language in the Developer Agreement to specifically exclude the GPL as an acceptable 'FOSS license'. If you can get some kind of language in there making it clear that this is the FSF's choice, and not ours, that'd be great."
Bruce Sewell: "Right."
Steve Jobs: "And send Stallman an iPad, the big 3G one. Have 'Hey, Stallman! Where's your contract, hippie? Love, Steve Jobs' engraved on the back in letters, like, two inches high. And use the corporate font."
::general laughter::

You can ignore them after that, too. You'll be in infringement though. Given that this was a program from which neither Apple nor the FSF got a penny of income, what exactly would the FSF ask a judge to do, other than remove the offending copy from the store (which they've already done)? A judge won't order Apple to "observe the GPL".

"Contacting Apple" via a web page announcing an "enforcement action" against them? Publicity stunt.

You're just making this up as you go, aren't you? It requires the express permission of the copyright holder, or the holder of a valid license to the copyright. Robota represented themselves to Apple as having a valid license to the copyright, as well as having "used FOSS code appropriately".

At which point did Apple sign a contract with the FSF to observe the GPL? The prior poster is correct: this is nothing more than a situation of Robota Softwarehouse of the Netherlands infringing a copyright held by the GNU Project.

You hire the demolition company. The demolition company asks for your ID and a copy of the deed to the property. You show them a forged driver's license in your neighbor's name, and a forged deed. The demolition company knocks down the house. You pay them with a forged check.

Yes, the demolition company walks away completely without penalty. They did their "due diligence" in making what any reasonable person would agree is a reasonable effort to ascertain that you were, in fact, the owner of the property.

You lied to them, using forged documents to do so. You are completely liable for all actual damages suffered by your neighbor, and almost certainly punitive damages as well. You are also guilty of destruction of property, fraud, impersonation, use of forged documents and a variety of other criminal charges.

The driver gets the ticket, regardless of whether the car is stolen or not because the car doesn't commit the act of speeding, the driver does. Apple relied on Robota's statement that they had the right to sell the program and that they had handled FOSS code appropriately. If Robota misled Apple, that's not Apple's fault.

This is only on the pretty optimistic assumption that the judge doesn't hold the FSF in contempt and fine them for having wasted the court's time.

That's silly. What exactly is the FSF going to tell the court?

"Apple violated our license!"
"Do you have a contract with Apple wherein they agreed to observe your license?"
"Er......no......"
"Hm. Well, you can't hold them to a license they never contracted to observe."
"Apple infringed our copyright!"
"It looks more to me that Robota infringed your copyright, if anyone did. Apple never even saw the source code for this program."
"But Apple had an infringing copy on their store!"
"And they apparently relied on Robota's statement in their contract with Apple that the program could be legitimately sold. Did you send them a DMCA notification?"
"Er.......no......."
"Did you send them a cease and desist letter?"
"Um...not exactly..."
"What did you do?"
"We put up a page on our web site announcing an enforcement action and..."
"A what?"
"An enforcement action. If someone violates our license..."
"You've already said you had no contract with Apple regarding this license, so that's irrelevant. Look: did Apple make any money by providing this application?"
"Er.......no......"
"Did you lose any?"
"Um......well......it's not about the money..."
"That's good, because there doesn't seem to be any. Are you deliberately wasting the court's time here?"
"We're working for software freedom!"
"You'll be doing it from a jail cell on a contempt charge in a minute, at this rate. You haven't lost any money, Apple hasn't made any money, Apple has removed the infringing application in spite of never having been properly notified by you... What damages are you claiming? What remedy are you seeking in this case?"
"The cause of freedom has been damaged! We want you to order Apple to observe our license!"
"I'm ordering you to the slammer for fourteen days for wasting my time with this frivolous suit."
::BANG!::

It's not "illegal", it's "infringing", first of all. Second, they'll simply pull the app remotely off any phone on which it's been installed. Problem solved.

If "copyright infringement is not theft", then what cause does the FSF have for complaint with Apple? Apple never agreed to observe the GPL (and no, distributing copies of a program they were told by the developer was salable is not a contract to observe the GPL).

This is correct: all of the online stores are screwed, as I've shown in the article here Apple didn't pull the app to prevent openness: they pulled it to avoid the liability of having a copyright-infringing program (and Apple is not the infringer) in their store.

What's the GPL have to do with Apple? Did they sign a contract with the FSF agreeing to abide by the GPL?

Or, they could just remove the application and make the GPL an unacceptable license for future submissions. That's easier and cheaper for them.

And what's Apple's motivation to "opt in" to the GPL? Richard Stallman having called Steve Jobs a "snake oil salesman"?

Richard Stallman's having claimed for years that there was a "secret back door" in OS X whereby Apple messed with your system without your knowledge or consent? Stallman repeated this fairy tale right up to the point where he suddenly did a complete about face, offering a full retraction, and apologizing (pretty half-heartedly) to Apple for having spread a defamatory rumor with no actual basis in fact. Funny thing, that.

"Dr. Stallman? There's someone on the phone who says they're from Apple's Legal Department, and they insist on speaking to you immediately. They said that if you're not on the phone in ninety seconds, the next time they chat with you, you'll be in front of a judge as the defendant in a multimillion dollar civil suit for defamation and interference with their trade. They also said something about turning our building into the Boston Apple Store, and giving every FSF employee a free iPod before they threw us all out into the street. I think you'd better talk to them."

Apple simply relied on Robota Softwarehouse's statement that there were no legal impediments on the sale of the program, a stipulation Robota had to make as a precondition to getting it placed on the store. Apple acted in good faith; that Robota misled them is not their fault, and isn't actionable as long as Apple does what it can to remedy the situation (i.e. removing the app from the store) when they're properly notified of the infringement.

The FSF certainly can't claim that they were harmed by this infringement, or that Apple profited by it. Nobody ever paid either Apple or the FSF a red cent for GNUgo.