You can ignore the difference, but it's kind of obvious

For example, most parts of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (also known as "Obamacare") were recently perceived as constitutional by the Supreme Court. So the law is now on a much firmer footing than it was a month ago, even though the law itself didn't change. The perception did.

In the same way, all it takes is a few judges who DO believe that the GPLv3 prohibits boot time signature checking to make that the reality. I am not a lawyer, but the license as written does seem to me like it could be interpreted that way.

I really believe that people who use complex and poorly understood licenses are doing themselves a disservice. Political activism through licenses just doesn't make sense.

The worst part of the whole situation is that most of the licenses, software and otherwise, that we are forced to agree to on a daily basis are not written by open source hackers, but rather by companies like Apple, Microsoft, and so forth. Apple has already set terms for their app store which forbid GPL'ed programs. It wouldn't be a big surprise if any Microsoft app store had the same kind of terms. We should *all* be hoping that complex and EULA-like licenses are ruled unenforceable, not contributing to the problem.