Why doesn't OS X violate the GNU GPL when it comes with programs like bash and nano?

Question

macOS

Apple distributes closed OS X along with pre-installed programs under free licenses.
As far as I understand, the GNU license implies that you can use programs with this license only in open source products, otherwise what's the point of it?
Where should I complain?

Answer 1

> As far as I understand the GNU license implies that you can use programs with this license only in open source products, otherwise what's the point in it?
No, misunderstood.
GPL products may be shipped as part of paid products without changing the source code (and keeping the original license). However, if such programs are modified, the vendor is obligated to release the patches to the owner of the GPL program. What to do with these patches is up to the owner(s) of the source code.
bash on OS X is completely normal.
However, Apple complies with the GPL. On the example of CUPS - the main committers in cups work in Apple.
By the way, the GPL code (of course, provided that it is not modified and the license is preserved) can be sold, you can provide paid support, you can provide paid modification services for the customer's tasks (provided that the customer is not going to distribute these patches further from of your face) without passing the patches upstream.

Answer 2

Complain to the Free Software Foundation.