[logn]

It's not that big of a deal. It's an LGPL-licensed codebase which incorporated BSD-licensed modules (there's nothing wrong with that). Since LGPL places some requirements on being intermingled with incompatibly-licensed software, the author made sure to point out which parts were under the more permissive BSD license so people could re-use those parts and not be subject to LGPL by using his project as a whole.

In a nutshell, if you use an LGPL codebase, make sure either: (1) your code is LGPL or under a compatible license or (2) that you only use the code on an API level and dynamically link to it.

Btw, LGPL is a license accepted by many enormous communities, such as Qt.

If you want to fork this project, easiest route is to just re-apply the LGPL license and fork after the point where notice of BSD parts was added, because it's a violation of BSD to not mention their license.

IANAL

[Argorak]

I have no problem with the LGPL (beyond the occasional problem with legal, but thats legals problem) or the dual-licensing in general.

The linked commit hints at additional problems with missing licensing etc. In the absence of good documentation on this, a new maintainer has the problem of not being able to make heads or tails of it if someone had claims on the code.