If you want a set of files to be compliant with SPDX, you must follow the SPDX Specification. This requires that certain elements are present, and permits others. It requires that the file have certain properties, for example (spec item 1.7.1) that it must be human-readable. If you do not comply with the specification, what you have is not an SPDX document. According to specification item 2.2 a "DataLicense: CC0-1.0" is required to make the metadata freely usable and copyable. Other license tags appear to be permitted but optional, if I am reading the spec correctly.

There is no general requirement that you use a license designation such as the one quoted in the quwsation , and I do not see any such requirement in the SPDX spec.

However, if you want the code to in fact be available under the tems of the Apache 2.o license, you must follow the procedures of that license. These read:

To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy of the license text by copying the contents of LICENSE-2.0.txt into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your distribution. If the distribution is a jar or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first in order to place it at the top of the archive. This covers the collective licensing for the distribution.

In addition, you must include a correct NOTICE file in the same directory as the LICENSE file.

Each original source document (code and documentation, but not the LICENSE and NOTICE files) should include a short license header at the top. If the distribution contains documents not covered by an ICLA, CCLA or Software Grant (such as third-party libraries), consult the policy guide.

If you do not comply with these requirements, others using the Apache 2.0 license may not consider your distribution to be compatible, and may decline to link to it or accept it.

If you want a set of files to be compliant with SPDX, you must follow the SPDX Specification. This requires that certain elements are present, and permits others. It requires that the file have certain properties, for example (spec item 1.7.1) that it must be human-readable. If you do not comply with the specification, what you have is not an SPDX document. According to specification item 2.2 a "DataLicense: CC0-1.0" tag is required to make the metadata freely usable and copyable. Other license tags appear to be permitted but optional, if I am reading the spec correctly.

There is no general requirement that you use a license designation such as the one quoted in the quotation, and I do not see any such requirement in the SPDX spec. The exact license quoted is one granted by Apache, so you would not use that in any case.

However, if you want the code to in fact be available under the terms of the Apache 2.o license, you must follow the procedures of that license. These read:

To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy of the license text by copying the contents of LICENSE-2.0.txt into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your distribution. If the distribution is a jar or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first in order to place it at the top of the archive. This covers the collective licensing for the distribution.

In addition, you must include a correct NOTICE file in the same directory as the LICENSE file.

Each original source document (code and documentation, but not the LICENSE and NOTICE files) should include a short license header at the top. If the distribution contains documents not covered by an ICLA, CCLA or Software Grant (such as third-party libraries), consult the policy guide.

If you do not comply with these requirements, others using the Apache 2.0 license may not consider your distribution to be compatible, and may decline to link to it or accept it.