Today, I stumbled across the package ExGeography the name of which and the fact that it is from Pilot Logic reminds me of the "astronomy" issues. Again it is a mixup of two separate sources. I did not yet look for the originals, but one part is by Jose Mejuto - (the u* files, all have "License: The same as freepascal packages (basically LGPL)" in the header, and the other part is by Seppo S Finland (the flag* files, with "Licence: modifiedLGPL (Same as FreePascal)" in the header).
In the long term, I would again vote for separating the two sources since both licenses, strictly speaking, are different. (or maybe not? - I don't know, I'm not a license specialist)
What is more important is that the OPM license field shows "GPL". I think this is wrong, it should be changed to "LGPL" being the common denominator of both packages.
What is the general opinion about combining different packages into one? Without having checked this explicitly, I suspect that many of the ct packages are like this (I hope this does not open another war against PilotLogic, this is not intended.)
From the point of view of one user it might be better to have different packages because he does not need all of the units or because they offer the same stuff (like the moon units in Astronomy), and from the point of view of another user it might be better to have them combined because installation effort is much less.