The structure of the GPL is that they give you specific permission to do things prohibited by copyright. Should you do things like modify and distribute the code, then you are assumed to have accepted the GPL because it is the only way you wouldn't be breaking the law. Therefore if you distribute, you are bound by what the GPL says.
However when you are dual licensed, this assumption falls to pieces. You are distributing a modified version of the software. But you could be distributing it under either the Artistic or GPL licenses. If the GPL is unfriendly to you, then why wouldn't you be choosing to distribute under the Artistic license instead? So if anyone says, "The GPL doesn't allow this!" you just say, "I never had to, nor did I, accept the GPL. I am therefore not bound by it."
Or at least that is the theory that Larry Wall came up with. (To the best of my knowledge he invented it.)
In reply to Re (tilly) 6: licensing confusion
by tilly
in thread licensing confusion
by david54321
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |