I concur with this. I have just been in discussion with some of their developers on IRC and although they *say* it is GPL, it clearly does not comply with the requirements about offering the source in clause 3. Their defence is that it is not released, but I am unsure why this makes a difference if the project is being distributed.
Whether they label it as "released" makes no difference at all. By not releasing source, they are not doing what the GPL calls for.
If there is GPL-covered code written by someone else in this release, they are violating the GPL. If that is the case, I suggest that someone point this out privately--don't make the first approach be to write to a mailing list.