All contributions to inetutils are licensed under the GPL It's common practice in GNU to keep the license of the original code, in the spirit of allowing the original upstream authors to benefit from our improvements. For example, rms specifically said that our changes to firefox to make icecat should be under the same tri-license as firefox, even though ordinarily he would not want to use the MPL for GNU software.
I think we are missing each other somewhere. All contributions to inetutils are licensed under the GPL, but the original code from BSD4.4 Lite -- which inetutils is based on -- is under the 3-clause BSD license; which does not include a relicense clause so we could not relicense the work even if we wanted to. The tri-license of Icecat/Firefox is a different situation, since it contains a explicit relicense clause where one can pick the license. Granted that the English can be interpreted in both ways, the former (desired) interpretation is the intent and the lawyers gave it their blessing. Thanks for the check!
