The license from http://sox.sourcearchive.com/documentation/12.17.7/g711_8c-source.html

/*
 * This source code is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided
 * for unrestricted use.  Users may copy or modify this source code without
 * charge.
 *
 * SUN SOURCE CODE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING
 * THE WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
 * PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.
 *
 * Sun source code is provided with no support and without any obligation on
 * the part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction,
 * modification or enhancement.
 *
 * SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
 * INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY THIS SOFTWARE
 * OR ANY PART THEREOF.
 *
 * In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue
 * or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if
 * Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
 *
 * Sun Microsystems, Inc.
 * 2550 Garcia Avenue
 * Mountain View, California  94043
 */

That seems compatible with Python's licensing, no?  It seems like adding this license text to the file and also to the documentation in http://docs.python.org/license.html#licenses-and-acknowledgements-for-incorporated-software would make this a non-issue.  Assessment of the module's contents and whether it should be rewritten or removed seems like a separate issue.

I could write up a patch if people think that this would solve the problem.