Good example! And yes, KHTML's license requires Apple to release the source code for their changes, but it doesn't require them to do so in anything like a nice fashion. You can comply with the (L)GPL with tarballs and silence-implying-raised-middle-fingers rather than public repositories and bug trackers.
I may be wrong but I have the feeling that KHTML case is a good exception. Apple traditional way of complying with OSS licenses is not that nice (tarball + patches and there you are).
It goes even farther than that. They could have separated most of their work out into separate modules that linked with the LGPL code from KHTML, and all they would have to do to comply with LGPL is provide a way for the user to replace the LGPL code. They would not have had to release the source for their modules.
> They could have separated most of their work out into separate modules that linked with the LGPL code from KHTML, and all they would have to do to comply with LGPL is provide a way for the user to replace the LGPL code.
And indeed, they _do_ do this, I think; a lot of WebKit is BSD license.
