Because it is glaringly obvious that it is not the case? Who would give permission to distributr the old bits and pieces from OS 3.2 anyhow?
Look, to be frank, you do not know that, and you do not know where the components came from. They could be home-made like Peter K's icon.library.
At least, I do not know whether the other components are distributable in this form or not. The only thing I do know is that one cannot distribute the Shell-Seg in this form. It is probably nit-picking whether the archive contains the binary or the patch, but to be 100% correct, the binary as such is not redistributable. So yes, this can be removed.
Anyhow, I just wanted to point out the double standards here.
I would rather say that this has still to be seen. There's a difference between "hey, I hacked up exec and here you go" and binaries that are, possibly, self-made components by someone from scratch (or not?) that replace the CBM binaries, plus one component that has (only) been distributed in in proper shape but whose author has developed this component under contract and is otherwise fine with its distribution.
I'd say that there is actually a difference - at least unless clarified.
To be on the safe side, go check where the components came from, contact the authors and see what they have to say.