This is not right. If they put it online and point you at it, at the time they ship, that's fine. Otherwise, it's going to be looked at as a written offer. In this case, it's a 100% clear written offer.

Written offers must be valid to all third parties.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenO...

> This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

So you still need to be in possession of the binaries. it is not any 3rd party, it is any third party who has possession of the binaries.

No. I understand why you may think it can be read that way. But i assure you it means "that means people who did not get binaries can still receive copies of the source code".

Please read the GPL compliance guides as well, which cover this in some detail (i quoted it for you in the other comment).

What you write would be correct for GPLv3, which uses the phrase, "accompanied by a written offer ... to give anyone who possesses the object code "

This was specifically changed in the third discussion draft of GPLv3 (see http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-rationale.pdf) In any case, i assure you: if you try to restrict it to people who have binaries, various parties will take you to court for non-compliance :)