> I understand the argument. I just don't know if in that situation you are legally > forced to license it under BSD or whether you could argue that you were unaware that > the file was under a different license. I'm not sure there is enough of my code in > any of those files that I'm worried about arguing over.
Well if the code was licenced under BSD at the time you made your submissions then your submissions are available under BSD, you can't 'take that back'.
However you are perfectly within your rights to offer your submissions under another licence aswell.
> He did have it in mind since the last discussion about changing the license (which > did change the license to the current one). There however was a big push to try to > force everyone to BSD license their code or have it replaced.
Well, I certainly don't like the idea of trying to force a vast licence change upon contributors, particularly from a position of power followed by a threat of 'accept or be replaced', so if that was indeed the case then I find it a case of real poor conduct.
Typically these types of actions only come into play when the instigator know full and well that the majority will be against his/her proposition. I think it's 'shitty' to say the least if your description of events is apt.