Set license name instead of ID when using custom license

[2000rosser]

Description

A valid SPDX is required when using the ID field for licenses. If the license is a custom license, use the name field instead.

Addressed Issue

#3897

Checklist

• I have read and understand the contributing guidelines
• This PR fixes a defect, and I have provided tests to verify that the fix is effective
• This PR implements an enhancement, and I have provided tests to verify that it works as intended
• This PR introduces changes to the database model, and I have added corresponding update logic
• This PR introduces new or alters existing behavior, and I have updated the documentation accordingly

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.02% (target: -1.00%)	❌ 66.67% (target: 70.00%)

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (a4d5a7b)	22074	16811	76.16%
Head commit (177d9b6)	22076 (+2)	16817 (+6)	76.18% (+0.02%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#3915)	3	2	66.67%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

---

_{🚀 Don’t miss a bit, follow what’s new on Codacy.}

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[2000rosser]

I actually don't think the unit test I added is necessary, will remove it.

[nscuro]

Thanks @2000rosser!

Do you think you could add a test for this scenario here? https://github.com/DependencyTrack/dependency-track/blob/master/src/test/java/org/dependencytrack/resources/v1/BomResourceTest.java

Have a look at the existing export tests, and either extend them or add a smaller test case that's scoped to only this problem.

We want to ensure that, given a component with custom license, the exported BOM looks like expected (assertThatJson...), and passes schema validation (assertThatNoException().isThrownBy(() -> CycloneDxValidator.getInstance().validate(jsonResponse.getBytes()));).

[2000rosser]

@nscuro Sure, I'll take a look and add a test for it

[nscuro]

Thanks @2000rosser!