I checked (tried to check) the license for all the apps @uniqx listed:
bughunter2.smsfilter's source code is offline. The Fair license consists of one sentence besides a warranty disclaimer, and I don’t understand it-- is “instrument” supposed to refer to the license? It’s also unspecific in the way that it doesn’t explicitly grant the four freedoms, it only permits “Usage”, which sounds like freedom to use is granted, but studying, sharing and improving might not be.
Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument.
0BSD, which the FSF doesn’t list but I suppose this as the only sentence besides a warranty disclaimer qualifies as free software:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.
BSD-2-Clause, which as discussed is approved by the FSF
com.gladis.tictactoe: Beerware should qualify as an Informal license
You can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return.
com.hermit.btreprap: CC-BY-SA, however at least the README doesn’t specify a version code:
Bluetooth RepRap is ditributed [sic] under the Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike license. No animals were harmed in the creation of this software.
This is a little difficult, considering that Creative Commons besides CC0 does not consider itself a software license. We can’t really be sure that the source code has actually been freed.
CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 is not a free software license.
com.powerje.nyan: actually licensed under Apache 2.0, only the artwork is
CC-BY-NC-3.0, see repo or even the F-Droid wiki article
com.rj.pixelesque: actually licensed under BSD-3-Clause according to F-Droid wiki and repo, only the artwork is
de.naturalnet.mirwtfapp's source code is offline, see below for
MirOS license and consider that it looks like it is developed by the same entity
de.naturalnet.zahnarztgeraeusche's license looks like a free software license, and according to itself, it is
edu.cmu.cs.speech.tts.flite's license looks like a free software license, and according to fedora, it is one of many “functionally identical” MIT variants
fr.ornidroid doesn’t seem to have any license at all
org.dyndns.warenix.web2pdf: not Apple MIT license but actually normal MIT license
org.gfd.gsmlocation: licensed under Apache 2.0, not
BSD-2-Clause is free software
pl.sanszo.pcis: The Non-Profit Open Software License version 3.0 that this is licensed under is like the normal Open Software License, which would be free software but incompatible with the GNU GPL, but it’s a little different as explained here:
There is also a new Non-Profit OSL 3.0, identical to OSL 3.0 except that: Under Non-Profit OSL 3.0, Licensor disclaims certain warranties and limits liability from certain types of damages. Those differences are summarized in § 17 of the Non-Profit OSL 3.0, a section that does not appear in OSL 3.0 or AFL 3.0. Because of § 17(a), only non-profit distributors may use the Non-Profit OSL 3.0 license.
The other minor differences among OSL 3.0, AFL 3.0 and Non-Profit OSL 3.0 are highlighted on the copy of OSL 3.0 that is posted at www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-comparison.pdf.
I see a direct reason to act concerning
com.longevitysoft.android.appwidget.hstfeed, as it is not licensed under a free software license, and
fr.ornidroid, unless someone can find a place a license for it is declared.
I have opened a merge request to fix the incorrect license fields I noticed above.