The "notice" is the literal license file. It is illegal to strip someone else's license from their work. It doesn't matter that they replaced MIT with MIT, because they stripped the author and attribution from it.
Peerd seems very different from Spegel, so Microsoft does hold quite a bit of copyright over Peerd.
Now I genuinely wonder if the main LICENSE should say "copyright Spegel and Microsoft", or if somewhere in the repo Microsoft should just have a copy of the Spegel LICENSE file?
It looks like they relatively recently migrated the entire codebase from Apache to MIT. I wonder if that was in relation to pulling in code from Spegel. They updated ~every header.
