the way I read its is that no, BMW is NOT legally required to release it as it is in a proprietary piece of HW, and releasing the code could thus cause harm to their business. and while they ARE using it for 'gain', no one can prove that they were HARMED or had a loss of income or even IP (outside of copyright) by their (BMW's) use of such as it is essentially 'free' in that no money or barter items were exchanged. They MAY have a copyright claim at best, but again, I am not a lawyer. That's just how I see it.
Is there a precedent to enforce GNU licensing outside of copyright infringement?
That's not how the GPL works. If it would be inconvenient for BMW to incorporate GPL software and properly comply with the license by providing source, then their only alternative is not to incorporate the GPL software. Full stop. Harm or proprietary hardware has no bearing on the rights granted by the GPL.
That is true in the real world if and only if there is someone willing to sue BMW and see it through to the end. Absent someone doing that I don't see how the GPL is actually enforceable. In some ways it is similar to what we have with surveillance and the NSA in US. While they are probably breaking the law the courts have been unwilling to force them to stop.
》 That is true in the real world if and only if there is someone willing to sue BMW and see it through to the end. Absent someone doing that I don't see how the GPL is actually enforceable.
So... just like every other contract, ever? You can't have an enforceable agreement between civilians without courts. Anyone willfully making a derivative of GPL software explicitly agrees to that contract and as usual, courts are the arbiters. Yes someone needs to go to court.
"the way I read its is that no, BMW is NOT legally required to release it as it is in a proprietary piece of HW, and releasing the code could thus cause harm to their business."
When in the hell did the "Release sources, unless it would do harm to your business" clause get added to the GPL?
"no one can prove that they were HARMED or had a loss of income or even IP"
Sure they can. It's their IP, and if BMW wanted to use it, they had to follow the license, or negotiate for a private license. They did neither, which very much would constitute harm.
"is essentially 'free' in that no money or barter items were exchanged."
The barter is that you would "pay it forward". BMW has not upheld their side of the bargain.
"They MAY have a copyright claim at best"
They're the ones who wrote the software; they're the ones who decide how it gets licensed. If that license is broken, then their copyright was violated.
"Is there a precedent to enforce GNU licensing outside of copyright infringement?"
Your reading is incorrect. BMW is distributing hardware and software, and is possibly in violation of the license agreement that allows them to use that software.
Their only possible defense is to assert that they are not using GPL'd software.
If you are talking in practice - can someone sue BMW and force them to release the modified versions - I think you're right, but one can still get an injunction preventing them from distributing any more copies of the work. Which means no more cars with that firmware; not a happy prospect for BMW!
Is there a precedent to enforce GNU licensing outside of copyright infringement?