Thanks for opening this issue. A GitHub docs team member should be by to give feedback soon. In the meantime, please check out the contributing guidelines.

Thanks for the report, @mwichmann 👍🏼

cc @jeffmcaffer who expressed an interest in making sure our licensees correct, discoverable, etc.

Thanks @mwichmann. Indeed the LICENSE content is overly complete (love how you put that). Having said that, licensee, the underlying tool that identifies licenses is working as expected and does detect both the CC and MIT licenses. (see output below). The challenge is that the GitHub UI does not deal with multiple licenses and instead opts to say View license and point users at the LICENSE file.

So for this issue we should likely invoke the lawyers to ensure we have the right file content and pursue the multi-license handling in the UI separately.

~/git/test$ licensee detect --remote https://github.com/github/docs
License:        NOASSERTION
Matched files:  LICENSE, LICENSE-CODE, README.md, package.json
LICENSE:
  Content hash:  25b636566bb4cee96f8e917e6382b7c4a6858a90
  Confidence:    100.00%
  Matcher:       Licensee::Matchers::Exact
  License:       CC-BY-4.0
LICENSE-CODE:  
  Content hash:  d64f3bb4282a97b37454b5bb96a8a264a3363dc3
  Attribution:   Copyright (c) 2020 GitHub
  Confidence:    100.00%
  Matcher:       Licensee::Matchers::Exact
  License:       MIT
README.md:
  Content hash:  7c25f06c9b30aca9c1da23ad86968bb38db2d53f
  Confidence:    90.00%
  Matcher:       Licensee::Matchers::Reference
  License:       MIT
  Closest non-matching licenses:
    WTFPL similarity:  16.22%
    0BSD similarity:   15.50%
    ISC similarity:    13.89%
package.json:
  Confidence:  90.00%
  Matcher:     Licensee::Matchers::NpmBower
  License:     NOASSERTION