portaudio in Debian, license updates?

[tim hall]

Junichi Uekawa wrote:

>>>However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
>>>
>>>http://www.portaudio.com/license.html:
>>>* Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
>>>requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
>>>they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
>>>      
>>>
>>Sounds quite clearly like a request to me, not a requirement.
>>    
>>
>
>The difference between a non-binding request and a requirement is a
>fine line especially considering why it's in the main license text not
>some accompanying documentation.
>
>Clarifying this is what is really required; moving the problematic
>clause out of the way would help.
>  
>
Hence my suggestion of the use of the word 'encouraged' instead. It is 
Debian Policy to encourage Maintainers to cycle changes back upstream 
anyway. It does not say 'Must' or even 'Should' here. I agree that it 
would be good if it were worded less ambiguously. I don't see how this 
phrase would prevent any particular usage of PortAudio, either in Debian 
or derived distribution, surely that is the critical issue? The 
direction we give to the PortAudio devs needs to be clear and 
unambiguous too, so I won't go on about this, to save driving round the 
block again. ;)

cheers

tim hall