I am not a lawyer and so I am reliant on the analyses of others on this matter. However the fact that TrollTech can dual license under the GPL and QPL makes that point. They have contributed code as GPL code on one hand and they keep a proprietary tree of the same code under a different license. That is how they got KDE into a dominant position. The free and commercial versions of QT for Unix are the same AFAIK. You just choose which license to use. TrollTech is free at anytime to stop releasing new versions under the GPL.
And while you're at it, explain to everyone what they're supposed to do with their RedHat CD's that contains Linus' kernel source... Mail it back to Linus?
Keep using the code. You can keep using that version without the support of Torvalds, but all future versions of his code would be BSD. There's a fork of QT under the GPL that makes it run like a native non-X11 library on Win32. If TrollTech stopped releasing under the GPL they'd still be able to continue working on the Win32 version under the GPL.
Though on all of this don't get me wrong, I think the GPL is a fairly flawed license. I've been thinking about seeing if I can rewrite IDLE (the Python IDE) to use wxPython as opposed to Tkinter. If I get around to trying that I would avoid the GPL like the plague and go for the BSD license. I personally couldn't give a rat's ass whether someone else profits off of what I've written.
As I suspected, Linus cannot 'remove' his code from the Linux kernel. Once part of the GPL kernel, it is forever available under the GPL. If it was an 'individual license' as you purported earlier, this wouldn't be the case.
I agree that Linux can take his GPL contributions and place them elsewhere (proprietary, BSD, etc.). But that's not 'removing' them from Linux.