They're only preventing GPLv3 (and its ilk). There's a reason they mention GPLv3 and not GPLv2.
GPLv2 just requires the sharing of source code for a given binary. GPLv3 takes it a lot farther and requires that a mechanism also be provided to use derivative works. So if a car manufacturer uses GPLv3 code, they not only have to distribute the source code (which may or not be an issue), they also have to allow people to flash their own code onto the car's embedded computers.
This problem stemmed from TiVo, they used GPL code on their set-tops but signed their binaries. People could make derivative works, but couldn't use them.
In the embedded space, you can imagine that GPLv3 is very much hated. It's a big reason why a lot of projects haven't switched to v3.
You are the first to actually hit that point, and I believe rightly so. I don't see how you could actually comply with V3 and release your software on any of these stores. The obtaining of a developer signing key is not free, and there is no guarantee that the derived work would actually be accepted.
I think you could on the Android store. Android phones have a setting to "allow installation from non-Market sources", which means there is no restriction on distribution.
GPLv2 just requires the sharing of source code for a given binary. GPLv3 takes it a lot farther and requires that a mechanism also be provided to use derivative works. So if a car manufacturer uses GPLv3 code, they not only have to distribute the source code (which may or not be an issue), they also have to allow people to flash their own code onto the car's embedded computers.
This problem stemmed from TiVo, they used GPL code on their set-tops but signed their binaries. People could make derivative works, but couldn't use them.
In the embedded space, you can imagine that GPLv3 is very much hated. It's a big reason why a lot of projects haven't switched to v3.