The requirement to release source code is placed on those making use of the license, not on the original holder.
> For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
The original licensor receives no freedoms, as the work is theirs to begin with. It doesn't apply to them. "You" refers solely to those accepting the license.
If the original licensor hasn't release the source code with the binary at the time, they are under no obligation to do so. Using the particular license doesn't make sense, but they still aren't obligated.
There is no legal issue here, only a moral one. And as the community didn't give the developer room to breathe, that has evaporated.
Author releases software version A under GPL, source code and a binary.
Anyone can do anything they want with A under the terms of the GPL.
Author releases software version B. People cannot force him to release source code just because A was released under GPL.
Even if he says B falls under GPL but hasn't released the source code (yet), people at most can say he did not comply with the terms of the GPL and refuse to treat/use it as such , which means they cannot use or redistribute it since that is not allowed under normal copyright rules. It cannot be used to force the author to release Bs source code.
I'm saying, if he releases version A under the GPL, he has to comply with the terms of the GPL for that release.
In any case, I'm no fan of the GPL, so it's no sweat off my back. But I don't understand someone releasing a software version under a certain license and then getting upset because someone asks him/her to abide by the terms of that license.
And that includes getting the source code for a binary released under the GPL. That's exactly what was at issue.