Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
it's not their code that's being discussed. if it was their code, they could do whatever they want with it, including distribute it under both GPL and proprietary licenses.
Scenario divides into two sub-cases: BMW Australia (or parent) are the licensor (owner of the relevant copyright title), or they are not. I've discussed upthread case 1, so let's turn attention to case 2.
when it comes to other people's GPL-licensed code, though, they have no choice. Their only options are to distribute under the terms of the GPL, to negotiate a different license with the author(s)/copyright-holder(s), or not distribute it at all. there is no other option for them.
Actually, a third option is to commit a tort (copyright infringement). It's actually pretty common for businesses to choose to do so, typically as what is perceived as the lesser of two problems, e.g., where the alternative is expected to create serious problems for the company or its partners. And a fourth alternative is the one where they don't own copyright but have contractual rights from the copyright holder, that permit BMW to do things a copyright holder might otherwise object to. Consider option #3, commit the tort. OK, who's the copyright holder? This is relevant question because said party is the _only_ entity on the planet with standing to bring litigation over the tort. And standing matters because, if the tort-feasor knows that the only party with standing doesn't mind, committing the tort might be a very attractive option indeed. I don't know who that copyright holder might be, but I'm going to strongly guess that it's a frequent business partner of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG that wouldn't actually give a tinker's damn about this (hypothesised) tort on the automobile company's part.