unclear other-permissive conclusion

[armijnhemel]

Description

from libbb.h from BusyBox:

/* vi: set sw=4 ts=4: */
/*
 * Busybox main internal header file
 *
 * Based in part on code from sash, Copyright (c) 1999 by David I. Bell
 * Permission has been granted to redistribute this code under GPL.
 *
 * Licensed under GPLv2, see file LICENSE in this source tree.
 */

    {
      "identifier": "other_permissive_and_gpl_1_0_plus_and_gpl_2_0-d3dd97df-e089-74e3-091b-41b81f05dde9",
      "license_expression": "other-permissive AND gpl-1.0-plus AND gpl-2.0",
      "license_expression_spdx": "LicenseRef-scancode-other-permissive AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only",
      "detection_count": 1,
      "reference_matches": [
        {
          "license_expression": "other-permissive",
          "license_expression_spdx": "LicenseRef-scancode-other-permissive",
          "from_file": "busybox-1.35.0/include/libbb.h",
          "start_line": 6,
          "end_line": 6,
          "matcher": "3-seq",
          "score": 7.14,
          "matched_length": 5,
          "match_coverage": 7.14,
          "rule_relevance": 100,
          "rule_identifier": "other-permissive_50.RULE",
          "rule_url": "https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/tree/develop/src/licensedcode/data/rules/other-permissive_50.RULE"
        },

The line:

 * Permission has been granted to redistribute this code under GPL.

apparently caused the other-permissive_50.RULE rule to trigger (with a low score) but I think that this isn't correct: it could very well have been licensed under a very different license.