Not legal advice, but this should be fairly clear because they did the leg work of doing the spdx headers (which we should keep if we bring this in). We can treat the code either the GPLv2 or the BSD-3 license, this actually came up recently because the licensing around can-utils was being clarified which I had made a small contribution to and they asked for acks on some license headers. https://github.com/linux-can/can-utils/pull/143 Note that there is a mix and not all of the spdx headers include the BSD license option. How this relates to the move to the Apache 2.0 I'm not sure on. Probably can email Apache Legal.
I did run across this which provides the Linux interpretation of dual licensed code: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html
Reading licenses is like breathing chloroform; after a few paragraphs, my eyes roll back in my head and I begin drooling on myself. But I think the dual licensing is okay from the standpoint of Linux: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html
I am sure Apache has a stronger position Greg
