unclear other-permissive conclusion

### 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.