> The license on this file gives extremely broad permission to distribute with no requirements. The GPL has requirements if you are distributing it. These two licenses are not compatible.
That's not how it works at all. You receive the file under a broad license, but can redistribute it under a more restrictive license. Anyone who receives that file under the GPL is subject to the GPL's obligations even if the file previously existed under another license, as long as they weren't actually granted that other license.
This is the entire foundation of "contact me for a less restrictive license"-type monetization schemes. It doesn't matter which licenses the file was ever licensed under, it matters which license was granted to you with the file.
That's not how it works at all. You receive the file under a broad license, but can redistribute it under a more restrictive license. Anyone who receives that file under the GPL is subject to the GPL's obligations even if the file previously existed under another license, as long as they weren't actually granted that other license.
This is the entire foundation of "contact me for a less restrictive license"-type monetization schemes. It doesn't matter which licenses the file was ever licensed under, it matters which license was granted to you with the file.