The MIT license explicitly applies to those who obtain a copy of the code, not those who distribute it (although you are explicitly granted the right to distribute the code if you do obtain a copy of the code).
It also requires that all copies or substantial portions of the software maintain the copyright notice and the license text. If Goldman is just ripping off copyright notices and MIT licenses and slapping on their own copyright notice and license (or lack, thereof), they are doing it wrong. Way wrong (would not surprise anyone though).
>Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
>Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
>The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Not that simple. You can't just place your license above someone else's code even if you do not distribute externally, at a minimum you are going to distribute it internally. I'm not sure what legal avenues exist to prohibit this but this does not simply get a pass.
If it's permissively licensed, sure. But not just any license.
You can't rip the copyright notices or license text off anything under the MIT license, for example.