This is why I consider BSD to have a tiny edge over MIT, it uses clearer language about this, e.g.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
MIT says
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Note in, not with, and BSD is “with documentation or other materials provided”, this can with near certainty be fulfilled by an app linking to online documentation which includes the licenses. MIT it’s less clear, that’s not really “in… the Software”.
This is true in my experience, if they even go this far that is. Generally permissive licenses are treated as “do whatever you want”, attribution requirements are frequently ignored.
I know we just talked about this, but since it’s on-topic I wanted to point to my BSD variation, which is meant to align with current practice by making compliance as simple as including the copyright string in the manifest. A binary-only distribution can then simply include the manifest in the “documentation and/or other texts provided with the distribution”.
Doesn’t help here, and as you pointed out in the thread, nonstandard licenses are not without disadvantages. But they only become standard one way, says I.
It’s pretty easy to @embedFile a license if one wants to be 100% about everything, that’s _in_the software by any definition. MIT doesn’t say anything about it being legible without resorting to strings(1).