HoloPlayCore mentionned license is wrong

[mwestphal]

In the ReadMe we can read:

vtkLookingGlassInterface.cxx uses content from HoloPlayCore, which is distributed under the following license:

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) 2015 Arthur Sonzogni

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

This is definitely not correct.

1. HoloPlayCore is distributed under a proprietary license which can be found here: LICENSE.txt (From HoloPlayCore-0.1.1-Open-20200923.tar.gz)

2. The aboce license is actually coming from a completely unrelated project: https://github.com/ArthurSonzogni/OpenGL_CMake_Skeleton/blob/master/LICENSE

[martinken]

The code snippets this module derives from is from the Example included in the SDK. The example has it's own LICENSE file which is what is included here. The specific source file in that directory I derived code from has in it's header.

/**
 * HoloPlayContext.cpp
 * Contributors:
 *      * Arthur Sonzogni (author), Looking Glass Factory Inc.
 * Licence:
 *      * MIT
 */

I would guess they used "completely unrelated project" as the starting source for their example code which they then extended and they left that copyright on the code. I am not a lawyer so I do not know if a LICENSE file in a subdirectory superceeds a LICENSE file in a parent directory or adds to it or what. That is a lawyer question. But the license I reference was the one on the directory of the code I derived from. If I look to the specific file it would still be a MIT license as I understand it.

[cquammen]

One more note: the full HoloPlayCore SDK from Looking Glass Factory contains the MIT-licensed example code that is included in vtkLookingGlassInterface.cxx. That example is not included in the zip file containing the HoloPlayCore SDK that ParaView builds against - it includes only the necessary headers and dynamic libraries for building ParaView.

[mwestphal]

Great, now we understand were does this license come from.

In any case, this statement is still wrong:

vtkLookingGlassInterface.cxx uses content from HoloPlayCore, which is distributed under the following license:

The MIT License (MIT)

[cquammen]

It is correct.

[martinken]

More clearly I guess we could say

vtkLookingGlassInterface.cxx uses content from the example in HoloPlayCore. The specific content it uses from HoloPlayCore is distributed under the following license...

[mwestphal]

Ha ! If the intent is indeed to mention that vtkLookingGlassInterface.cxx is based an the example which is under BSD license, than it is indeed correct.

In any case this license copyright is incorrect, but it seems to be a upstream issue.

I'd suggest rewording has @martinken suggests.