While I sympathize with the writer of this post, I don't really see what recourse he has? If the license allows for 120 days before they have to release the source code, what could he possibly do?
120 days is HTC made up number. The GPL does not set such a delay. Therefor HTC delaying the release, HTC violate the GPL license which several components, like the kernel are licensed under.
The GPL (v2) sets no specific delay but it also sets no specific deadline by which the code must be released after a request has been made.
While the delays these companies are making are pretty lame and obviously go against the spirit of the GPLv2, releasing code 120 days after product release (or more importantly, from the first specific request for code from a customer who bought the product) is not clearly in violation, from a legal standpoint.
Are you a lawyer? Because in the past the advice I've been given is that the absence of a deadline on a requirement does not imply the ability to impose your own choice of deadline. 120 days is clearly far more than would be reasonably required to provide the code.
it also sets no specific deadline by which the code must be released after a request has been made
I imagine that 120 days would not be seen as reasonable in terms of a license/contract when the words are "upon request." Hyper-legalisms like "no specific deadline" are irrelevant.
It's pretty simple when it comes down to it - the copyright holders are the only people who can take action, and the fact that there is no "grace period" simply means that they are illegally distributing the binaries.
The licence does not specify 120 days. The licence does not specify a minimum or maximum. It's up to a judge to decide if what HTC are doing is in compliance with the GPL licence. They may not be.
