LICENSE misses owner and year information

[LW-archlinux]

LICENSE file currently has

Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]

from https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0

To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!)

Please correct the license.

[eli-schwartz]

This was motivated by a packaging discussion elsewhere. Cross-posting what I responded there...

The LICENSE is correct as is. The owner and year information is not part of the license terms and conditions. The placeholders in question are part of the appendix, which implements an advisory (non-binding) how-to guide for marking your files as covered by the LICENSE. cf.

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.
[...]

It is strictly against the intention of the document, to modify the "how-to guide" appendix and render it unfit for comparison and inspiration. It amounts to defilement.

In fact, doing so is its own potential legal problem: the GPL contains a similar appendix, with the further point that the GPL text itself is copyrighted and non-free; you're not permitted to defile the GPL or its appendix even if you want to... AFAIK you can do so with the Apache license, but it's not just something you can assume you can do...

[LW-archlinux]

If the copyright info isn't supposed to be in the license file, where should it be placed ?

Offcourse the obvious answer is each file needs its own copyright notice.
Unfortunately, not all files in the repo have such a notice.

example :
https://github.com/google/tsunami-security-scanner/blob/master/proto/detection.proto has a copyright notice

https://github.com/google/tsunami-security-scanner/blob/master/build.gradle does not have ANY copyright clause.

What license applies to such a file ?