Can I publish with someone else's Unity Pro Licence?

It's not that simple and I believe Unity staff have already answered the question in this thread. Its a violation of the EULA.

 

They answered about him making the game with his free license and using Pro to compile. We all know that's not OK.

@superpig He is not a third party. He is employee. Totally different.

 

How can that exist when the employer cannot lease a license to an employee but must purchase a license for the employee?

In this case the first party is the license owner, the second party is Unity, and the third party is the employee. At least that's how I understood it.

 

Relationship is not relevant, usage is. If he is working on a project that is not the owners project, it is a violation of the EULA. Doesn't matter if he is an employee, a brother, best friend or whatever. The company licensed Unity for use by the company and cannot sub-license/lend/whatever to anyone. As an employee, the company license covers company projects, not personal ones.

 

Except of course when employee is using for the company's project(s) in line with their employment contract, then they are functionally an aspect of the first party.

 

But doesn't the EULA stipulate that you cannot purchase multiple licenses? you must buy a license for every individual employee, which renders this moot, and this license needs to be in the employee's name.

It's possible a company similar to EA or other large entity has a separate agreement but that's not the thrust of this thread.

http://unity3d.com/legal/eula

 

Do you know what type of agreement said company has? Do you know what type of license said company has? For all we know this Pro license is in his name, just the company paid for it.. Its still mute.. There is no conflict here, if his employment says he can use company property for his own stuff.

 

Yes, we do know. He already said that it is the company's license.

Yes and no. It is common for companies to allow, to a degree, for employees to use company equipment/software. But "use" is not "publish". And they cannot exceed/modify the terms they are bound to. The license allows for his company to publish under their name. So sure, they can let him use it, and they can publish it for him if they want to. But as superpig pointed out, his company cannot transfer/lend rights to him to publish under his own name. That isn't a right they have in the first place.

I can give you permission to rob a connivence store, but you are still getting in trouble. Because I don't have any legal authority to give you that permission.

 

Half right. Yes, each individual user must have a separate license, but doesn't have to be in their name. In fact that would problematic for any company with turn over (like say... companies in the game industry). I think all of ours are under the same name, a guy who used to run the IT department several years back. Regardless of the name on the email, all the licenses we have are owned by the company. (in fact do to some confusion, I have two pro licenses on my machine, so I am doubly covered... or something).

We are allowed to use our tools for personal projects as well. But, well... as you might guess, things are a little more complex here. Anything I do on company hardware software is owned by the company, even if done off the clock, by default. I can get it excluded before or after, but I don't own it until I get that written exclusion.

 

It would be pretty cool if all said licenses could be owned by a company and not individual. Do you know if that is possible?

 

I may be completely wrong, but my understanding is that the names in the licenses are just an identifier/connivence. The serial number is tied to an owner/purchaser. All of our older liceneces have the same name on them because he was the primary contact on the account and he made the purchases. But the account and the licenses are all owned by the company, and new orders still have his name because no one updated the details after he left (and the email address is a department one not an individual one).

I do know that is the case for many of the smaller tools we purchase. (that the name on the serial is just an identifier). I have two tools (a network monitor, and image batching tool) on my machine that bear the name Donald Duck as the registered user.

 

That's just quackers.

 

That's a general statement, that you can't really make, unless of course you are privy to the specific contract agreements Unity has with companies.... The license he is using has to be locked to him.. They can't have 2 different employees assigned to that license. Since that is the case, he can (if his company says so) use it for his own personal use. License are locked by PERSON, not title. HE is not some random guy the are just letting use a license.

 

Well, we also don't know if they have a specific agreement that limits them to only using Unity to publish games about ponies. Since that is just about as likely is a safe assumption that his company doesn't have a specialized agreement that allows them to share their licenses arbitrarily with third parties. Specialized license for software are used a variety of reasons, but it is extremely rare that a license would allow for extending/sharing/duplicating/creating a license. Those are usually only for those in the business of distributing the software or bundling/customizing for hardware (as a manufacture). Negotiating that level of specialized license is very rare and very expensive.

Besides, he clearly stated he is the only one using Unity and they use it for presentations. Obviously they don't have a custom license agreement.

No the license is not "locked to him". Licenses are bound the entity that purchased the license. Since it was his company, the company owns the license. A company must have a license for each individual using the software. That simply means that if a has 10 developers that use Unity, they have to have 10 licenses. That doesn’t convey or transfer any rights to him, the license agreement is between Unity and the company.

If a company hires "Bob", and Bob needs to use Unity, the company has to have an available license to cover Bob's usage (or purchase one). Bob doesn't own the license, Bob didn't enter into an agreement with Unity, he is just using company software. And since it is one license per user, no other employee of the company can use that license because Bob is using it. Bob has no rights to the software beyond those associated with his job. Bob is not the Licensee. If Bob leaves, that license can then be used by Bob's replacement. Bob's seat is now vacant.

It's all pretty standard stuff. It's virtually the same with every commercial software license.

 

Sorry to revive this really old thread, but it seems there isn't anything conclusive on this matter (I've been searching the forums for the past couple of hours) and this thread was the most recent/relevant I could find.

I hope you are right... But the EULA says:

Which could mean either:

1) Every user needs to have a license to his name.

or

2) You shall not share a License Key. Which could mean you could have a key specifically for an employee. And if that employee leaves and you can ensure that he will never use that specific license key again (he left the company), you can give the key to someone else (new hire).

Which is in line with what I was told years ago (mid 2012 I think, it was a bit before 4.x came out) which was:

Which confused me a bit at the time since it can be summed up as: we don't have a floating license, but for legal entities the licenses are kinda... "floaty".

So I believe that the correct interpretation is the second one.

Or at least I hope that's the case, because during the Windows Phone Offer, I won a Unity 5 Pro license key, and I'm about to upgrade my Unity 4 Pro key to 5 Pro (as soon as the capital controls in Greece get lifted...), so I'll have two 5.x pro Licenses to my name, which might be the stupidest thing ever depending on how you interpret the EULA.

 

Would be making "company Unity accounts" for each employee that are used only on site and goes to next employee after they're fired/quit be against license?

I mean, employer makes accounts A, B and C linked to company e-mails. They're used by employees A, B and C. But then employee B quits, so they hire employee D. Employee D uses B account...

 

Thank you @Graham Dunnett . It's nice to have some clarity on the matter.

 

Or woman... Wouldn't want to assume all employees are dudes?

 

Women can call each other dudes as well you know. It's actual meaning is fool.

 

Except that's not how society views it. But, was meant as a light hearted joke.

 

OK dude

 

Thanks Dude...

 

Actually, a 'dude' is a hair on an elephant's butt if you want to get technical.

 

Elephants have hair?

 

They don't really. And Dude doesn't really mean that. It's something that kids tell eachother.

 

Except they do.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/us/elephant-hair/