The omission is inconsequential. One does not require intellectual property rights to abuse "a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty free and transferable licence (with right to sub-license) to, including without limitation, use, display and transmit the content and source code."

A service allowing consumers to "find and fix known vulnerabilities in Node.js dependencies" certainly does not require a transferable license (especially one with the right to sub-license). A transferable license allows the licensee to freely assign the license to any other party without the licensor's consent. The wording includes the right to sub-license, allowing the same license to be granted to another third-party -- again, without the need to obtain the licensor's consent due to its inclusion as part of the transferable license statement.