DRIVERS-329 (<- DRIVERS-409 <- CXX-2771) establishes a consistent pattern for specifying the notice and date, but does not clarify the extent to which the notice must be applied. 

Apache guidelines state, "It is also valuable to tag each of your source-code files in case they become detached from the LICENSE file." But this too doesn't clarify what source-code files should be considered at-risk of becoming detached from the LICENSE file, or in what manner they may become detached.

Where should we draw the line on which source files require a license notice? In order of smallest set to largest set:

1. Source files that are installable (e.g. header files, package config files, etc.)?
2. Source files required to produce installable files (e.g. `.cpp` files)?
3. Source files involved in producing installable files (e.g. `CMakeLists.txt` files)?
4. Source files involved in developing installable files (e.g. test files, CI config files, utility scripts, etc.)?
5. Source files primarily for documentation purposes (e.g. `.md`/`.rst` files)?
6. All source files tracked by the repository (excluding binary blobs)?