fix(license): add FilePath to results to allow for license path filtering via trivyignore file

[dus7eh]

Description

Refers to discussion #6117 about trivyignore license definition not working properly for python packages

Before state is visible in the referred discussion.
After the change an entry is visible in logs:
DEBUG Ignored {"id": "GPL-2.0", "path": "usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scapy-2.5.0.dist-info/METADATA"}
with trivyignore.yaml defined as:

licenses:
  - id: "GPL-2.0"
    paths:
     - "usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scapy-2.5.0.dist-info/METADATA"

Related issues

• Addresses discussion License image scan filtering doesn't seem to work when trivyignore is specified with `paths` #6117

Related PRs

• Added as a TODO to feat(license): add struct with types for licenses  #5211 but seems that can be fixed independantly

Remove this section if you don't have related PRs.

Checklist

• I've read the guidelines for contributing to this repository.
• I've followed the conventions in the PR title.
• I've added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
• I've updated the documentation with the relevant information (if needed).
• I've added usage information (if the PR introduces new options)
• I've included a "before" and "after" example to the description (if the PR is a user interface change).

[DmitriyLewen]

Hello @dus7eh
Thanks for your work!
I left comments. Take a look,

After your PR i thought about this case again.
I see 2 moments related to packages without locense info (case when we use another file to find license)

1. It would be correctly to use path to license file instead of lock file. But in this case user may get confused. Because user is scanning the lock file and may not have the information that we are scanning another file to detect license.
2. But if we use path to lock file as license filepath - there may be case where user wants to find this license -> user opens lockfile -> but lockfile doesn't contain license.
   But in this case, the user can check the documentation and read how we define licenses for his package/language.

So i think that we can start from this solution.

[DmitriyLewen]

Thanks for your work and
LGTM!

@knqyf263 take a look, when you have time, please.