That was intentional. (BTW I consider the current way this provision is drafted to be suboptimal, as I noted in the talk.) The idea was, I wanted to zoom in on 'problematic dual-licensing'. If some project does something like what jQuery used to do (MIT|GPL), this is essentially the same as just MIT licensing.
As originally conceived, this provision is supposed to apply only to the original upstream licensor. Anyone downstream is subject to the copyleft requirement already. However, I have heard a recent report from a credible source about purported copyright holders of copylefted software who are not clearly upstream-original-licensors shaking people down for proprietary licenses, in some cases trying to give the misleading impression of affiliation with some well-respected organizations active in GPL enforcement. So I made a tweak to the provision to attempt to cover that case. That conceivably could involve a downstream licensee doing the shakedown. The added complexity of covering that case may not be worth it, because I'm seeing a common confusion among some readers about what this provision is principally aimed at doing.