I would think that would be enough too.
Perhaps there were kernel mods they implemented by SMC or Skype that weren't at the URL given.
As described by this article (and we know how accurate reporters generally are on tech stuff), the judge made a bad ruling. Just because you distribute GPL software doesn't mean you have to snailmail a CD of the kernel to anyone who asks. If it is a physical product that is shipped with a driver disk or something like that, it would make sense to perhaps include the kernel and relevant code with it. Otherwise, this ruling really doesn't make a lot of sense.
From what I see I agree with the article and you on that point. This should not have been considered a violation of the GPL by skype (maybe by smc)..
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you ... give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.Providing a copy of the license for the included software is a requirement. A simple sheet of paper in the packaging with the license on it would have sufficed. They fulfilled their obligation to provide a the source code by giving a link to the web site according to b).3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
...b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code
Companies generally take so much care when distributing proprietary software, especially if they are distributing a derivative. They have lawyers pore over the licensing agreements to make sure they won't get screwed. Yet for some reason they don't comply with the simple, plain-text requirements of the GPL that cost them virtually nothing.