At least the licenses in MetadatHandler.java do not appear to conflict with each other. Why does the Apereo Foundation license go only through 2012 ?

To me, it seems like those original licenses are fine and the additional Apereo license isn't needed. The other two show the "origins" of the code, which may be interesting historically?

How do we identify other files which might have multiple license headers? Seems like if we can identify them and decide on the right way to handle, the actual clean up should be easy.

This added licenses to files that had license headers that weren't ECL, as an example we have:

./lessonbuilder/tool/src/java/org/sakaiproject/lessonbuildertool/cc/MetadataHandler.java

which now has 3 license headers. Now sure what todo about this case.

Is there an easy way for me to confirm? Look at certain files on the 11 branch and compare the licensing header in the source to 12 (or something like that)?

Most of this is IANAL though, and it's better to do it and only not much downside if it's easy to do

The risk of not doing it is unknown and might not be known until far into the future.

I believe in the past () the code was better audited for licenses but we haven't kept up on it as much lately.

ECL is a similar license to ASF and that says

"WHY IS A LICENSING HEADER NECESSARY?
License headers allow someone examining the file to know the terms for the work, even when it is distributed without the rest of the distribution. Without a licensing notice, it must be assumed that the author has reserved all rights, including the right to copy, modify, and redistribute." - https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

So this sounds like a very nice to have if the effort isn't huge, and I'm hoping with this plugin that at least it can do an update for all files that have no headers in our source code.