This is my long-held understanding of GPLv2:

Nokia's T&Cs, with whomever, may imply that Nokia says they have no obligation to distribute source when they distribute GPL-covered binaries (or equivalent offers to provide source, as detailed in the GPL).

But if Nokia don't do that, then Nokia have no right to distribute the GPL-covered binaries, no matter what contract they have with the upstream publisher - unless all the copyright holders of the software agree to an alternative license under which Nokia can distribute the binaries.

Agreeing an alternative license can be as simple as adding an exception to the license allowing it to be distributed by OVI with just a link to source elsewhere. But only if all the copyright holders agree to thisl This is because the copyright holders acting together are not bound by the license.

A single author modifying GPL-covered software cannot grant this exception by himself, if copyright is also held by others.

Of course, the GPL is not always enforced.

All the above applies to LGPL too, but the scope of what is covered is different, and shared libraries make compliance easier.