Yes. Yay someone noticed 
It’s not clear, never has been, that simply naming a BSD style project in a manifest, and then having it incorporated into the work, fulfills the clause requiring that the license be incorporated. This says “yes, that’s fine, but also include the copyright statement itself”:
.dependencies = .{
// © 2025 Sam Atman <email scrubbed>
.tuqueque = .{
.url = "https://github.com/mnemnion/tuqueque/archive/refs/tags/v0.0.1.tar.gz",
// etc
},
},
},
Which I think is a reasonable way to go about things, personally. That may seem like extra work, from my perspective, it’s less work than the thing which really should happen but frequently doesn’t, which is fully incorporating a copy of the license in any dependencies into the repo using them.
Not a problem here, because it only applies if:
said link is the method in which this software has
been incorporated into the derived work, as, for example, when resolved by a package manager to fetch and incorporate the work
So if you’re including it in some other way, source inclusion canonically, great, just include the license as per usual.
To put the whole thing another way: the clause is “at your option”, so it must be strictly more free than BSD three clause, because the other clauses impose identical obligations in subtly different language.
That’s not actually the reason I use a lightly customized license though. If you stare it at long enough, squint perhaps, that reason will become clear.