Restore copyright notice to MIT License

[CraigMacomber]

This reverts the removal of the copyright notice from LICENSE-MIT which was done in 22badf1
The notice is part of the MIT license. Since the body text of the license refers to the copyright notice, it is unclear how to conform with the license when redistributing parts of 'THE SOFTWARE' unless it is included here.

[joshtriplett]

This was discussed at the time. The requirement in the MIT license to preserve the copyright notice means to preserve the copyright notice that's present; if there's none present, that requirement is trivially satisfied. (Note that in some ways the requirement as stated in the MIT license is just restating copyright law, insofar as you're already legally required to preserve copyright notices.) There's no legal or procedural issue here.

See rust-lang/rust#43498 , which has much more discussion.

Is there some specific problem or concern here motivating this proposal?

[CraigMacomber]

Is there some specific problem or concern here motivating this proposal?

I'm using some of the content from this repo in an external location with has different default licensing. (My team at Microsoft is adopting a fork of Rust's RFC process internally), and I want to make sure I properly attribute our modified copy of the template file (which I consider to be "substantial portions of the Software").

Anyway, given the thread you have linked (Thanks, thats very useful), its clear this was not a mistake and is apparently legally well formed, so no more action is needed on the Rust side here. I'll close this PR now as it is unnecessary and apparently incorrect.