No it ain't, those are just an attempt to pass something closed source off as open source.
At least, I haven't seen the authors give their blessing to a
fork of the old version of their software, beyond the text of the license itself. Maybe it hasn't been long enough, but it soon should be.
Why would the blessing matter, if the source is available and really licensed under a real open license after the exclusivity period? Why would the original authors give their blessing to a free competitor that aims to drive paying users away?
Perhaps you approach this a bit too dogmatically. The objective for me as a user is to have good quality software, with source available, in a competitive market that does not lock me in - because it allows other free or commercial spin-offs with low entry barriers.
If we can't ever accept something that does not pass the Stallman purity test - even if it means open source programmers in some niches should starve - what we end up in those niches is binary blobs filled with spyware. And due to network effects (see the above .PSD discussion), we soon find ourselves forced to swallow the blob because it's the only real option.
At least, I haven't seen the authors give their blessing to a fork of the old version of their software, beyond the text of the license itself. Maybe it hasn't been long enough, but it soon should be.