Consider adding a copyright notice

[SvizelPritula]

In #43498, the copyright notice reading "Copyright (c) 2015 The Rust Project
Developers" was stripped from the MIT license. This was done because there is no legal entity named "The Rust Project Developers" holding the copyright. However, this implies that groups who aren't legal entities don't deserve attribution, which I don't think is true. Also, this might be a license violation, since most rust developers never agreed to the removal. Therefore, I'd like to propose adding the following copyright notice:

Copyright <year> various Rust Project
Developers

This could also be interpreted as a violation of the license of pre-2015 code, as it's not exactly the copyright notice required, but that would also mean that changing the year is a license violation, yet most projects keep the year up-to-date.

[njhanley]

This seems like a big issue. Without a copyright notice in LICENSE-MIT, there is no clear way to comply with the one condition of the license:

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

This comment implies attribution isn't required at all.

Related: #63232

[SvizelPritula]

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine a judge interpreting this any other way than that no copyright notice is required, just the license text itself.

[aloisklink]

It would be nice for there to at least be something in the LICENSE-MIT file, even if it just says: "Please see the COPYRIGHT file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT". Not seeing a copyright notice in the MIT license is pretty confusing, until you find #43498 (comment)