Add a LICENSE file (the package currently has none)

Hi, and thanks for the package — the editor stack is a pleasure to build on.

This repository has no license file. There is none in the repository root, none
in the source tree, and GitHub's API reports `"license": null` for it. The same
is true of the sibling package (CodeEditSymbols), while
CodeEditSourceEditor and CodeEditTextView both carry MIT.

Why this matters downstream: without a license the default applies, and the
default is "all rights reserved" — no permission to redistribute. Both packages
are listed in the `CodeEditSourceEditor` target's own dependencies, so every
application that uses the editor redistributes them inside its binary. I ship a
macOS application built on CodeEditSourceEditor, and when I put together the
attribution notice for it I could only write "no license declared upstream" for
these two, which is not a comfortable line to publish and is presumably not what
you intended either.

If MIT was the intent — as it is for the rest of the project — adding the usual
`LICENSE` file would settle it. If a different license is intended, that would be
just as useful to know; the point is only that the file be there.

Happy to open a PR with an MIT `LICENSE` matching CodeEditSourceEditor's if that
helps.

Thanks!

Check the repository root and compare the existing license treatment in CodeEditSourceEditor and CodeEditTextView. Add the intended license as a root LICENSE file, or document the chosen alternative clearly; done means the package no longer reports a missing license and downstream attribution has a definitive license to reference.

由索引模型根據 Issue 內容生成。