IANAL.

Presuming (I haven't checked myself) the git author information supports this, it should be fine to treat this as licensing the code it specifies under MIT; based on that license name being (to my understanding) unambiguous and license application being based on contract law and contract law basically having at it's very core the principle of "meeting of the minds" along with wilful infringement being really really hard to even argue for if the only thing that's separating it from being 100% clearly licensed in all proper ways being not copying in an MIT `LICENSE` template with date and author name pasted into it.