From your own link: "The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you." So yes, that is the intent.

Sigh. Look. they have bad grammar, but i'm telling you what the intent is. Please read the GPL compliance guide: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-gu...

The example valid offer: "... This offer is valid to anyone in receipt of this information."

"Second, note that the last line makes the offer valid to anyone who requests the source. This is because v2 § 3(b) requires that offers be “to give any third party” a copy of the Corresponding Source."

This changed in GPLv3, which specifically mentions people who possess the object code instead.

It was changed explicitly, see the rationale for the third discussion draft of the gplv3.

The legal implementation is that the offer must be valid for any third party, yes. But the intent is that the offer is for people who received it under 3c, and I have no problem with BMW only doing the bare legal minimum for anyone else.

"But the intent is that the offer is for people who received it under 3c,"

Citation requested on intent.

I have provided evidence this was not the intent, citing things like the draft rationale, etc for the license prepared by the people who made the license. Please provide your counter evidence.

You've already provided the citation! Once again, direct quote from your own link, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenO... : "The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you." (where "in that way" is referring to "When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer.", i.e. 3c).