chore: refine how we handle licenses for binaries

[lidavidm]

• Linux packages: checking the DEBs, it seems they don't bundle licenses.
• Update Python licenses
• R: checking e.g. https://apache.r-universe.dev/adbcpostgresql, the packages don't bundle licenses.
• NPM: it appears the publishing process somehow materializes the license based on the license.hbs. https://www.npmjs.com/package/@apache-arrow/adbc-driver-manager?activeTab=code
• Java: JNI JAR already contains a customized LICENSE.txt with transitive dependencies.

Closes #4411.

[lidavidm]

@eitsupi I took a look at one of the R packages and it seems it doesn't bundle any license at all, is that expected? (this can wait until after your trip of course)

[eitsupi]

I took a look at one of the R packages and it seems it doesn't bundle any license at all, is that expected?

This is entirely intentional, and the R packages are configured to ignore the markdown files during the build process.

arrow-adbc/r/adbcpostgresql/.Rbuildignore

Line 3 in 698f216

^LICENSE\.md$

R packages include a license declaration in their DESCRIPTION file, and it is prohibited to include a file containing the full LICENSE text.

arrow-adbc/r/adbcpostgresql/DESCRIPTION

Line 15 in 698f216

License: Apache License (>= 2)

However, if we want to explicitly specify the dependencies included in the source code, we can place a file under the inst directory or include a file named LICENSE.note.
https://github.com/search?q=org%3Acran+path%3ALICENSE.note&type=code

For example, this would be the case for the arrow package.
https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/2aaac072d521feef8fa424a483917b5709c2eb2a/r/inst/NOTICE.txt