MIT licensing state is unhealthy

[vapier]

I don't think it's currently possible to comply with wasi-libc's license because copyright information has largely been stripped from the project

the top-level LICENSE file says:

wasi-libc as a whole is multi-licensed under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions, the Apache License v2.0, and the MIT License. See the LICENSE-APACHE-LLVM, LICENSE-APACHE and LICENSE-MIT files, respectively, for details.

the top-level LICENSE-MIT file says:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any
person obtaining a copy of this software and associated
documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the
Software without restriction, including without
limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of
the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software
is furnished to do so, subject to the following
conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice
shall be included in all copies or substantial portions
of the Software.

except the license file lacks any copyright information. it seems the file was edited from the standard/stock one to delete that information. see the OSI MIT license as a reference.

[tschneidereit]

With the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty certain that there's no legal defect here. Copyright notices are optional per the Berne Convention (Article 5(2): "The enjoyment and exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality"), and have been optional for US works since that country joined the Convention in 1988: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf. See this blog post (by an Actual Lawyer) for details.

Additionally, the setup here follows precedent from e.g. the Rust project (see e.g. this issue with largely the same concern, and the discussions linked from there.)