I wouldn't believe that wiki page's completion table for one moment. It hasn't changed since I was running mapping parties, and yet (for example) all of the one ways are now present.
The problem is that Apple's terms add restrictions, which the GPL prohibits. If the author had uploaded the code, Apple's defense could be "Well, they agreed to the terms, so their item is licensed under the combination of our terms plus the GPL's terms, even though the GPL claims that it can't be modified." Unfortunately, that doesn't work AT ALL if the work includes GPLed code from a third party.
The solution is to create an "Itunes Open Source License" which says "The terms of the GPL are superior to the Itunes license when they do not conflict, but the Itunes license is superior if they do."
Or, alternatively, kick Apple's butt until they stop trying to restrict freedoms granted by the GPL. At that point, the usage terms will be compatible with the GPL.
Errr, no, it's not. There are other reasonable inferences: that the programmer isn't concerned about efficiency of the running code but instead with his efficiency in coding; that the programmer originally had the code doing one thing, but changed it to do another and hasn't (yet) noticed that it's now redundant; that it's not wrong code, but instead redundant code so qwitcherbellyaching and submit a patch.
I parse HTML with regexps when I know it's been machine-generated with a certain structure and I'm only interested in pulling out the bits using re.search(r'blah(%s)blah') that got put in there with a printf "blah$(x)blah".
You're going to be tarring a lot of not-incorrect code with that brush of yours.
Hey there, Jim Thompson! How surprising to see you here, posting under your usual "I have a reputation to protect so I post under a pseudonym" name. You should put more effort into libelling people -- maybe your fine work will rise to the level of a lawsuit someday?