You are invoking a free software right, on modifications, on account of it being not copyleft, but "open source"…?
Open source means developed in the open, it is a quality of software, and gives the freedom of seeing what is going on.
Being open source has nothing to do with the requirement of sharing the source code for new releases, for the case of argument under the same license, which is at the discretion of the copyright holders.
What makes it a demand you can make for distributed binaries, is the copyleft clause in the GPLv2, which is free software, and as a virtue of being copyleft, ensures it remains so.
«You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.»
AFAIK there is no leniency on the time allowed for complying with GPLv2
That is at-least as much of a demand you can make, and it is much stronger than a petition, which you don't have to care about at all.
I don't think this situation arose out of 100 people not signing their name onto a petition.
Ask the developers and get answers.