Question Clarification of Asset Store-EULA, Provider Agreement, and Submission Guidelines

Hello there! I read through the three agreements, but some questions still surged through them. I sent a support ticket to the Unity Support Team last Friday, but they haven't gotten back to me yet, and I really need to get my assets released. I'm not sure where to post this as no category on the forum seems to cover this kind of support. I'm posting in hopes that someone could help me.

This is the message I sent them:

I read the Asset Store-EULA, Asset Store Provider Agreement, and Submission Guidelines, and yet a few questions seemed to surge through.

Asset Store Provider Agreement (https://unity3d.com/legal/as_provider)
Asset Store-EULA (https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms)
Submission Guidelines (https://unity3d.com/asset-store/sell-assets/submission-guidelines)

1. The EULA states explicitly under section 4.1:

"Some components of Assets (whether developed by Unity or third parties) may also be governed by third-party software licenses. In the event of a conflict between the Terms, the EULA and any such licenses, the third-party software licenses shall prevail with respect only to those components."

Still, the Provider Agreement states opposite to this:

"6.5 - Provider shall grant to Customers who license any Asset the license as provided in the EULA, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Unity."

"6.6 - All Assets that Customers license from the Unity Asset Store shall be subject to the EULA, unless otherwise agreed by Unity."

This doesn't seem to cover a situation in which Provider may require certain extra conditions to make the use of his/her Asset follow Provider's requirements. My question here is: can an extension to the EULA be created with extra limitations, warranty disclaimers, liability limitations, and terms?

2 - The Submission Guidelines don't cover the case in which the submitted code is pre-compiled in a DLL to avoid access to the source code until a Pro or Source version of the asset is bought by the Customer. This would result in no comments in-code for methods as DLLs prevent that, and that is a violation of section 4.3 paragraph "b" of the Submission Guidelines.

Said comments would be available in the Pro/Source version of the asset and be used as an advantage from a marketing viewpoint. Local documentation would still be included in both assets.

3 - If I sell an asset which totally depends on another asset to function, a library, but the dependency is also commercial, as in being sold by any amount of money in the Asset Store, instead of free, and both the dependant and dependency are of my intellectual property, would the dependant asset be rejected or approved, so long as it meets the other guidelines?

4 - Can I, instead of giving a support e-mail, provide a link to the dedicated community and support Discord server for the tool/tool collection, for I'm active most of the time on Discord, and way less on e-mail, and it is much more convenient for me?

5 - Say I have two assets, one selling for $100 and another for $120. Can I create a "package", including both assets in, and make the price $190 instead of $220, as physical-product-selling-digital-stores do?

I appreciate any help I can get. Thanks in advance!

 

You didn't see the correct forum because it is a hidden forum for asset store publishers only. Once you've got your publisher account all ready to go, you request from the forum moderators to be granted access to the forum.

I don't see where it "states opposite". The first one says when you download an asset it is possible it may have additional licensing beyond the EULA. In the case those conflict with the EULA the additional licensing prevails in only what conflicts. This appears targeted to users of the Asset Store downloading assets.

The second one is instead directed towards asset publishers and says when you publish an Asset it is covered by the EULA as provided, if you need it to be covered by licensing other than the EULA you must get Unity's permission in writing. How is that the opposite of the first one? So if you download an asset, it might have additional licensing. If you want to publish an asset with additional licensing, you need to get Unity's permission. Not opposite.

That's probably because extra conditions are extremely frowned upon if they are more restrictive than the EULA. There is a high likelihood your asset would not be approved. The EULA is intended so users of the Asset Store don't need to one by one read through individual license terms before making a purchase. Approving assets all with their own individual licensing restrictions defeats the whole purpose of the Asset Store, so Unity does so only very sparingly. This is something you'd need to work out with the Asset Store team.

Spoiler

Though if your additional terms are more permissive than the EULA, I'd just throw it into a license text file and include it in the asset. I used to do that to give specific permission to use assets as part of any marketing materials for promoting your game which uses the assets. This was because a strict reading of the EULA at the time actually did not allow that. The EULA has since been updated though so that specific case is no longer an issue.

DLL's aren't code which can be commented, so aren't in conflict with 4.3.b.

Spoiler

DLL's though are something most experienced developers will avoid purchasing unless from a well established publisher with a good reputation, because most assets eventually need some level of self support. DLL's limit or outright prevent self support.

Dependencies need to be called out clearly in the asset description, per submission guidelines 2.3.b. But Unity's criteria for approve/reject is not about simply following the rules. They curate the store. I've had assets rejected which follow all the rules simply because the asset store team felt they already had enough similar assets and didn't need mine. You'll be rejected if they notice you aren't following the rules, but also if they just don't feel like including the asset based on whatever judgement call they want.

Submission guidelines seem pretty clear on this at 3.2.e, but I'm sure you can include your Discord in addition and even mention Discord will likely get a faster response. In my documentation I started including you'll probably get a faster response if you PM me on the forum for example.

The Asset Store has a built in feature where you can set an upgrade price for lower assets to higher assets. You can create a single asset and price it at $190. You can create two separate assets and price them at $100 and $120. And you can even set upgrade prices from the two lower assets to the higher asset so the purchaser ends up still getting the higher asset for a total of $190 no matter which lower asset they started with (if you choose).

Though again you're not guaranteed to get all 3 assets approved, so I wouldn't make your sales plans depend on it. One of the examples I mentioned above where an asset was rejected because Unity already had enough similar assets is one I already was selling on the store as part of a bundled asset, which I wanted to break out individually for those who didn't want the full bundle. I appealed the rejection with this explanation, and was still rejected.

I am not a lawyer. I do not work for Unity. You'll get better answers to all of the above if/when Unity eventually responds to your email. Good luck

 

These are referring to two different things entirely. The first is if an asset uses for example a library which has an MIT license attached to it, and you as an Asset Store user download and use the asset, only the said library will carry the MIT license, the other parts of the asset will be covered by the standard Asset Store EULA.

The provider EULA prohibits you to put any foreign license into your assets because it can negate the Asset Store EULA's permissive license. For example if you could put a GPL license in your asset, your entire asset would become GPL licensed since the viral licensing form of GPL. Obviously it would throw a wrench in the automatic business usage of your asset. So Unity asks you to talk to them and ask for permission when you put any foreign licensed product in your asset. They usually don't allow it though, so best to not to do it at the first place. (They may make an exception if the foreign license it permissive like MIT or something and your asset is really awesome)


---
I do not buy assets without source code ever. If you stop developing your asset because you don't feel like working anymore or whatever reason I would stand there paid a handful of money and I couldn't fix the problems I have. Or need to wait to fix bugs or upgrade to certain Unity versions, etc.
Source code is not a feature, certainly not a Pro feature.

 

Oh, nice, didn't know that!

Well, English ain't my first language, this misunderstanding might be because of that. I don't have much experience interpreting agreements, let alone in English. This makes it very clear to me. Thanks!

Yeah, I started taking a closer look at other assets and noticed that some do include DLLs with no problem. But... still, you don't recommend making two versions, one as DLL and the other as Source, even if I offer a Grace Period (since it'd be an upgrade), and even if the code can actually be expanded (since it's all partial classes and structs) in the DLL version? Yes, I don't see many assets doing that, but there's one in special, Fighter Engine, which has three versions, and only the most expensive one grants access to the source code ($259).

I guess that makes sense, still, I suppose they could probably warn the person and ask them if even with the asset being in the midst of many similar ones, they'd want the asset to be sold.

Yes, it's pretty clear, I was just wondering if it'd be possible to not include the e-mail at all. It seems not then, hehe

I get that, and that's something I had already considered, but it's not what I'm talking about. I was talking about product bundles in which the final price receives a discount.

They have yet to answer it. Thanks!