✨ Added probe for permissive licenses

[fhoeborn]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

(Is it a bug fix, feature, docs update, something else?)

• PR title follows the guidelines defined in our pull request documentation

What is the current behavior?

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?**

• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes/features)

Which issue(s) this PR fixes

Fixes #3840

Special notes for your reviewer

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

For user-facing changes, please add a concise, human-readable release note to
the release-note

(In particular, describe what changes users might need to make in their
application as a result of this pull request.)

Adds a new probe for permissive licenses with the identifier "hasPermissiveLicense"

[spencerschrock]

Can you open an issue for discussion? Our contributing.md outlines the steps:
https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/blob/main/checks/write.md#requirements-for-a-check

If you'd like to add a check, make sure it meets the following criteria and then create a new GitHub Issue to discuss with the team:

(there's also some parts about how to implement that are probably out of date now. but I see you have the implementation using probes which is good)

[fhoeborn]

Can you open an issue for discussion? Our contributing.md outlines the steps: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/blob/main/checks/write.md#requirements-for-a-check

If you'd like to add a check, make sure it meets the following criteria and then create a new GitHub Issue to discuss with the team:

(there's also some parts about how to implement that are probably out of date now. but I see you have the implementation using probes which is good)

Thanks for the hint, I opened a issue here #3840

[cpanato]

lgtm

a few nits

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked stale because it has been open for 10 days with no activity

[spencerschrock]

Reviewed the probe portion, which generally looks good.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked stale because it has been open for 10 days with no activity

[fhoeborn]

I adjusted the code a bit based upon your review comments, did you have a chance to look into the rest of the PR?

[spencerschrock]

I adjusted the code a bit based upon your review comments, did you have a chance to look into the rest of the PR?

The reason I focused on the probe code was based on my comment here: #3840 (comment)

I am happy to merge the probe code which is why my review focused on it, but having permissive license as a check is too opinionated (in my opinion) to have as a check for all callers. Full response in the attached issue #3840 (comment)

[fhoeborn]

I adjusted the code a bit based upon your review comments, did you have a chance to look into the rest of the PR?

The reason I focused on the probe code was based on my comment here: #3840 (comment)

I am happy to merge the probe code which is why my review focused on it, but having permissive license as a check is too opinionated (in my opinion) to have as a check for all callers. Full response in the attached issue #3840 (comment)

Thanks for the suggestion!
That works fine for this use case (it is a simple true/false probe anyway), I removed the check code and adjusted the probe to be invocated independently

[spencerschrock]

Thanks for the contribution and being patient / flexible.

Note: for time reasons I went ahead and added a small bit of metadata (related to #4020) and fixed the linter to get this merged before our v5 prerelease candidate (hopefully tomorrow!).