One of the key provisions of most open source licenses is the requirement to reinclude the license text in derived works. For example, the BSD licenses (all forms) say:
Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>
- 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.
In practice most software acknowledgements precede each license with the name of the library that it comes from, but note that there's no requirement for that in the license text: it requires the copyright holder to be named, but not the specific project. For example, the notice above might just say "Copyright 2021 Google" and leave you with no idea which of the many libraries from Google was used (and it might not be obvious if it's a proprietary program in binary form). I can imagine a program acknowledgements that says "includes software under the following licenses" and lists many licenses like this, but without a heading for each one saying where they came from.
Have I read this correctly? Obviously it's not very fair, either to the original authors or software users, to omit that information, but it seems like it would be legal to do so?
I'm also interested in other permissive licenses (e.g. Apache, MIT). The ones I've read all seem to have the same problem.