As someone who's still learning about licenses. Does this mean that since they waited so long to release their OSS that they've been violating the terms of the licenses they've used to ship products for years (potentially)?
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html - "And you must show them these terms so they know their rights"
If they were distributing the binaries without any indication that they were GPL'ed (i.e. no written offers), then yes, it would have been a violation. But it's not a violation any longer. They seem to be under compliance.