Inconsistencies wrt relative paths in `referenced_filenames`

[armijnhemel]

Description

This isn't so much a bug report as more of a question. I can see that in certain rule files there are relative paths in the license text, but in referenced_filenames it is inconsistent. Sometimes referenced_filenames includes the relative component (such as ..), other times it doesn't.

An example is mit_1356.RULE:

---
license_expression: mit
relevance: 100
is_license_reference: yes
referenced_filenames:
    - LICENSE
---

{{licensed under MIT}}, see ../LICENSE

while in apache-2.0_1122.RULE:

---
license_expression: apache-2.0
is_license_notice: yes
relevance: 100
referenced_filenames:
    - ../../../LICENSE
---

## License

This code is licensed under {{Apache-2.0 }}(../../../LICENSE).

I could not find any guidance in the documentation about what the correct way is.

[RAUNAK2108]

Hi @armijnhemel, I’d be interested in contributing to this issue if it is still available.

My initial approach would be to first investigate how referenced_filenames is currently interpreted and whether there is an existing convention for relative paths in ScanCode rules. I would then compare the affected rule files and related tests to determine the expected behavior, update the inconsistent rules/documentation accordingly, and add tests to prevent similar inconsistencies in the future.

If the issue is still open for contribution, I’d be happy to work on it. Thank you!