Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Dual-licensing notices should therefore say something like: "Unless derived from just-GFDL-licensed content, my contributions are ... etc", and people should check the article history before concluding anything about the licenses.
Actually, what they should say, if you wanted to make it more explicit, is: "Any *original content* in my contributions is ..." etc.
That's the only reasonable interpretation, anyway.
Which makes multi-licensing much less usefull.
Well, much less useful than it *would* be, if one could in fact take an entire GFDL article and make it multilicensed just by fixing a typo in it. But then, cars are also much less useful than they would be if they could fly...