Add a LICENSE file (the package currently has none)

检查仓库根目录，并比较 CodeEditSourceEditor 和 CodeEditTextView 中现有的许可证处理方式。将预期的许可证作为根目录中的 LICENSE 文件添加，或清楚地记录所选的替代方案；完成的标准是 package 不再报告缺少许可证，并且下游 attribution 有明确的许可证可供引用。

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!