Killing Team Cooperation and Freelancers: impossible to work with different subscriptions plans.

Hi,

I was reading again the EULA, and there's a point where it says:

"You May Not Use Unity Personal, Unity Plus and/or Unity Pro Simultaneously
You may not combine or integrate Your Project Content developed with one tier of Unity Software (e.g., Unity Personal) simultaneously with any of Your Project Content that you develop with another tier (e.g., Unity Plus or Unity Pro). Your Project Content developed with Unity Personal and/or Unity Plus will be tagged with an identifier that is used to enforce this restriction."
Source: https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service/software

Now, my interpretation was that this has been written to avoid someone to "borrow" the license from someone else in some subtle way, and then releasing it with a Personal license.

Or maybe to enforce that you must stick to your subscription, discouraging subscribing to lower priced plans.

So I contacted the Support, and got an answer I didn't expect.

If I understood it correctly, each "project" can only be built and released if you and all your teammates are using, and have always used the same subscription plan for that particular project.
You're not even able to continue working on a project started with the Personal subscription if you later decide to upgrade.
You're not able to keep working on a project you started on Pro after the subscription ends, thus forcing you to subscribe for an additional year.

If you're in charge of producing the final build and have Plus or Pro you can't collaborate with, let's say, a composer, a level designer, an animator, a background artist, who may only need a Personal edition since they may want to invest on their own tools. They ALL have to pay 1 year for Plus or Pro

So, you can't possibly hire someone without knowing their subscription plan.

A Unity Pro freelancer can only work with Pro-licensed teams
A Unity Plus freelancer can only work with Plus-licensed teams
A Unity Personal freelancer can only work with Personal-licensed teams

So if you are not a programmer, you still need to have the same license the main programmer will be using, or have to upgrade. No turning back.

To apply for a single project could require you a 1-year commitment with a probably overly costly license.


I hope the support team did some mistake on interpretation, because all this seems absurd to me.

I also have asked several companies (even big ones) all around Europe, and they answered they use mixed license cooperation and teams, and said that it would be impossible to work if that was true.

Who is right? Is the future of Unity going to be splitted into "sealed classes"?

Were you all aware of this? Or is everyone out there infringing the EULA?

My personal opinion, according to the interpretation of the Unity Support, is that all this is killing cooperation and preventing a programmer to hire someone who is maybe just starting to work on Unity, since they'd be forced to pay in proportion to the recruiter's subscription plan.

Is it really this the scenario that Unity wants?

I'm really really surprised. I hope Unity is going to reword that part in some way.

 

https://www.unrealengine.com/

Yes I think most are aware of it, I used Unity in a professional manor a fair while ago and we all had Unity Pro. But on the off chance I ever did hire a freelancer, I wouldn't sit there questioning his setup..

In common sense terms it's a catch all, let's say you have a team earning over 200K a year and they have to use pro.. Because money is tight (for whatever reason) they hire some "self-employed" dev's to work on the project and put them on a plus sub. Unity essentially get screwed.

 

Wow !!!

 

License mixing is not allowed within a same company by it's employees. Freelancers are not affected. This has been talked over several times since the release of Unity 5

 

As a freelancer I use the lisence that's appropriate to me. For all intents and purposes I consider myself a third party. I work at my own premises, use my own equipment, provide my own lisences, pay my own taxes, and work for multiple clients.

Legally I'm a completely seperate entity from my clients. I don't ask what version they are on. Nor do I try and match my lisence to theirs.

The tagging system occasionally comes up occasionally in discussion with clients. You can easily see and edit the tags in the meta files in version control. But so far Unity has yet to object to the combination.

 

I'm sorry, I haven't been very present on the general discussions threads, and the EULA doesn't talk about freelancers explicitly.

Yet, the Support Staff answered (and I double checked by asking more in detail) that if I'm going to hire developers for my project, I will need to have a number of license seats for these team members to use accordingly if my project is to be made in Pro or Plus.

Actually, I've been hired for the project as well. And so are my "teammates". We've been hired by someone who probably doesn't even own a Unity license or has relevant programming skills.

Now, this may be an old topic or issue, yet the support seems to think otherwise.

Where could I find some official answer on this (since the Support seems it's not been around the forums as well)?
Is there someone up in the Unity staff who could give me some official answer?
Or, did I miss some step in the EULA?

 

There has been few threads about this, this is newest I found:

https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/mixing-unity-tiers-in-a-project.415676/

 

Exactly what question did you ask, though? Unfortunately in cases like this specific wording is important, which is made all the more difficult in that the words might mean slightly different things in different places. When you tell me you're going to "hire" someone I expect they will be your employee unless you clarify otherwise. If you're "contracting" someone I expect they're a freelancer or separate business. And according to a Unity staff member in the thread @Ostwind mentioned that's where the line is interpreted to be drawn (by them... and I did raise in that same thread that the subjectivity of that is a bit of an issue).

@aliceingameland?

 

Technically speaking you have the interpretation of the EULA correct. As written it doesn't allow you to hire anyone to work directly on your project unless they are using the same license as the rest of the project. The general assumption in the EULA is that the organisation running the project will provide licenses for all of the workers. The flexible license system means you can easily add and remove people from the license as they come and go. So the proper way to get things done is for the hiring body to maintain as many licenses as they have freelancers, and distribute them out as staff are added or removed.

The model doesn't actually work very well for small time freelancers and the small entities that hire them. The general point of hiring a freelancer is so you don't have to worry about all of the implications of an employee. Its further complicated by the fact that managing multiple licenses on a single machine is incredibly difficult. Plus there is the risk of a freelancer abusing the system and using a license for work outside of the scope it was provided for. Most of the conversations on the forums with Unity staff have amounted to 'well, that wasn't out intention when we wrote that'. However they haven't actually updated the license to reflect that.

The EULA is really designed to allow Unity to hunt down bigger companies that abuse the system. The general concern is that a company could get around needing pro licenses by having all of their staff as 'freelancers', pay them all less then 100K a year, and get out a multi million dollar project without having to fork out for a license.

I'm reasonably confident that the license tier I use is within the spirit and intent of the license, even if it doesn't match the exact wording. I doubt Unity will see the need to hunt down freelancers like me. However that's a risk I'll take. If I randomly disappear from the forums one day, you can assume my interpretation is wrong.

 

Thanks for the link @Ostwind!

I had a look at that thread and have also bothered members of the Unity Staff in the meanwhile.
I think the key point is this, posted by @aliceingameland :

Followed up by this unanswered question I'd be curious to know the answer of:

@angrypenguin : you're totally right. I'm not able to distinguish some legal terms in English.

I'm actually NOT an employee of my client, but I've simply on contract with him as a freelancer. And my other "virtual teammates" are on the same boat, we're all under contract. We're just a temporary team with a common goal until the end of the contract. In Italy actually it is not even considered "contracting". It's considered an "occasional performance" which doesn't even need a contract (even if we actually signed one, which has no strict legal value, because "occasional performance" don't need contracts by definition. It has the value of an oral agreement, but we decided to put everything black on white paper just for clarity sake).

The only possible cross-tier interaction on the project would be between me, the programmer, and the background artist/level designer (also doing an "occasional performance" for my client) which *could* (we're not even sure I won't be doing the level design as well) just open the scenes in the project and add/remove/manipulate objects. That's all.

But, if the level designer had to buy a 1 year Plus or Pro license just to do that, it would be overkill, since most of his work and skills (and tools) are art-oriented, and he would just use Unity for the duration of the occasional performance. Which is probably less than 2-4 months of work.

@BoredMormon: I don't think I'm into the "AAA company abusing the system". The whole team is really small (3-5 people) and probably only me and the level designer are going to manipulate the same project. I own the Perpetual Pro license but I may be subscribing for the Plus license just to get rid of the splash screen, and I believe the artist is going to just use the Personal edition only to be able to collaborate and help me a bit with the level design. I mean, he should be investing in the Pro versions of drawing and graphical suites instead of the 1 year commitment Plus/Pro Unity license just for a 2-4 months "contract" job.

I think this should be fair use and interpretation of the EULA.
Don't you think @aliceingameland @karl_jones ?

I'm concerned, because the final build is probably going to have my name and license on it, and I wouldn't have accepted this "contract" if I had known I would have been responsible for the license tiers of other "contract" teammates my client had chosen to make me work with.

According to this interpretation, you should also be able to start an indipendent project with the Personal edition, decide to upgrade to Plus, get more jobs in the meantime, until you are able to upgrade to Pro, still being able to complete you lifetime project which has transitioned different licensing tiers, without actually infringing the EULA. It would be a personal project carried out during different years, and would not constitute an abuse in every way.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

It is pretty clear that the terms should probably be clarified, and possibly have several example situations in the EULA to help understand the most common use cases.

For example, my understanding (which appears to not to be correct) is that licence only isn't relevant when it comes to third party. In my experience, (in software/games in general) a contractor/freelancer isn't third party, if they are working directly on a project, they are still first party. Though they may have a different employment agreement. Third party is an external service, or tool or discrete content/assets/libraries. First/third party is a relationship to the project and (not necessarily) indicative of employment/compensation relationship. I have worked teams internally, that are third party, even though we are all full-time staff of the same company. So that is how I interpreted the third party aspect, but Unity staff have indicated that isn't the case. So clearly there is need for better clarification. If both new users and folks with several decades in the tech industry can't understand how it is meant to be interpreted, it needs some work.

I also wanted to note that Unity licensing for indies and hobbyists is great, as it mitigates risk and lowers the barrier for entry. However, freelancers/contractors don't have that same risk, especially with the lower rates and plus level. As a contractor/freelancer you are getting paid for your time, there isn't anywhere near the risk that an indie has. Its a pretty good deal, even at the pro pricing, as far as costs go.

 

Also if @NeatWolf can't get a clear answer from support that indicates an issue. Of course there's the distinct possibility of some language barrier there, but that still has to be dealt with effectively.

On that note, @NeatWolf, I'd suggest asking if there's a local or regional Unity rep who you can talk to. They'll hopefully be familiar with how things work where you are, might speak your native language, and can probably look in a bit more detail at your specific situation than the support staff are able to.

 

On top of that, if, as they kind of indicated in one of the responses that is actually based on a definition of employment, that further complicates it as the legal types/definitions of "employment" appear to vary depending on where you are. They need a little flow chart or something.

 

That's obviously a mistake from Unity legal team since it violates everything Unity builds upon:
1- Asset store couldn't exist since you are mixing all kind of licenses.
2-If you release a game with plus and exceed the 100.000 usd (did it change? can't remember) yearly revenue you must upgrade to pro by contract. So will I be in a dead end? Can't use a project started with plus but must upgrade to pro?
Doesn't make sense.

 

It's just a misunderstanding. Clearly that isn't the case. You can upgrade (or downgrade) your license without affecting your project. Several people downgraded from pro to plus.

 

That's not actually true. The key wording of the lisence is simultaneously. Up and down grading is totally legit, as long as you are authourised to use the lisence.

For example if the new splash screen is pretty, I might end up dropping the plus subscription when my subscription ends.

 

I think to have understood well what the support said. I can't copypaste the answer here because it is forbidden.

But, if so many doubts are still around, after about 6 months, and the support team answers in a different way in respect of all Unity Staff that is on the forums, some kind of action has to be taken.

If something is so prone to interpretation examples of the intentions behind the text have to be given, officially, in an easily readable way, without having to dig inside the caves of the forum.

Even new potential users may be discouraged just by looking at the EULA and giving it a wrong interpretation (when they actually read it)

I actually sent the ticket support in CC to 5(five) different deparments, and the local Unity rep.
Only one answered, and the answer triggered the creation of this whole thread.

 

The EULA Rule indicating that you are not able to mix different Unity Licenses on a project (Pre-Unity 5's Free/Pro, Unity 5's Personal/Pro and now the current Personal/Plus/Pro) has always been the case; this is nothing new and tons & tons of studios have been managing for many,
many years.

 

Well... the EULA just is not clear enough if you look with the search how many times license mixing has been asked and how many interpretations or answers there has been from community, support or UT members. Improvements are required somewhere like at least in the official FAQ

 

Well, it is clear enough if people are finding the section about it and are posting on the forums linking it. The EULA is public and online (As OP demonstrates by sharing a link) and users abide/confirm to it when setting up a new Unity license/account. Its hardly hidden.

Edit: We also have a Knowledge Base which highlights that license mixing is not allowed (https://support.unity3d.com/hc/en-u...ferent-subscription-tiers-on-my-Organization-)

Where would you recommend we also post it?

 

It's not hidden but in some cases it's very vague info when read from the EULA. Your link specifies the scenario for a single organization. As Unity is used by different entities that collaborate there needs to be examples how the rule is affecting teams in different scenarios like employees, freelancers, or hobbyist teams working on same project. If not in the EULA then in the FAQ: https://unity3d.com/unity/faq

Also not everyone speaks English as their main language or even it they do it can be hard to interpret wall of legal text without enough examples

 

Well, it is clearly stated in each of three locations I have referenced. Only so many times we can state the same information! I can contact Legal/WebTeam to get it highlighted a fourth time but on the FAQ; if it would help?

 

Well I disagree. Please link and quote a specific text section from any of your sources where common collaborative and freelancer/contractor use cases have been clearly explained or even mentioned. Your KB link is only about a single organization use case. You guys also just opened the Unity Connect beta which makes this info or the examples even more relevant

Also I think existence of this and all of the previous threads proves my point that this is not that clear thing at all. Please check this for example, specifically what aliceingameland said in her replies https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/mixing-unity-tiers-in-a-project.415676/

 

Of course, we could add more examples; but I feel that they would just be extrapolating what the EULA already says! Maybe in a more official and detailed manner? Ill message the Legal team about the possibility of adding more information and make it more clear for those that don't find it clear.

 

So @Andy-Touch, since you are here, what is the official interpretation? Can a freelancer with Personal ever touch a project from a company with Pro? Can a freelancer with Pro do a small job on a project made in personal?

The lisence seems to indicate no.

 

If you are sure about how clear it is why do you seem to be skirting making any kind of definitive statement about contracters/freelancers?

How on earth is multiple threads where no conclusions are really made, where people still leave with contradicting ideas, where the same people seem to express different ideas over time, where the statements left my the unity employees seem orthogonal if not outright contradictory, how on earth is that an indication to you that the EULA is clear?

- - -

On the other thread (https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/mixing-unity-tiers-in-a-project.415676/)

@aliceingameland said the following:

And seven days later:

If it takes five working days for someone in the company to get an answer then its not as clear as you suggest. Furthermore this seems at odds with what you said: either the second paragraph from @aliceingameland is misleading or a non-statement (you can do what you always did, unless what you did was not according to the EULA), or we are allowed to hire contractors to work on our projects and let them use whatever licence they have, thus we are able to mix licenses on a project.

To be clear, there are fairly complicated rules in many countries about what is considered contracting work vs employment, but here (Australia) if someone has their own business registration, brings their own equipment and licenses, and works for multiple parties through a year (less than 80% of personal services income from one source), they are considered to be acting as a contractor.

In other words they could be sitting in my office working on my team working on the same project in the same way as everyone else, but according to @aliceingameland at least, it would be okay for them to use a different Unity licence.

Is it? Can you confirm that if I have a short term project I could hire a bunch of contractors (by legal definition) and let them use whatever license I want even if I made 100k+ or used PRO for the publishing? Because if I can't do that how can I hire one contractor to do level design without requiring them to have PRO*?

- - -

EDIT: * And on that matter is there way I can verify if the contractor did use PRO? Is it in the metadata? If its binary metadata and I convert it to text will it change the metadata to indicate my licence, or will it still indicate their licence

 

People aren't asking you to repeat the same thing more often, they're asking for valid edge cases to be clarified.

For example:

Referring to the EULA itself it says:

... and then defines "Your Project Content" as...

... which is pretty vague. That is where the problem exists. The thing that people are confused about is exactly where the lines are drawn to do with that. Even in your own posts here, @Andy-Touch, in one post you mention licenses relating to a "project" (which in itself an ambiguous term!) but then link to a document that refers to an "organisation". So... which is it?

(Personally I'm pretty sure it's "organisation", because the "you" in the terms is defined as referring to the specific legal entity who agrees to the terms, so if someone isn't a part of your legal entity then you're not responsible for what license they might be using. It doesn't actually matter in any of my use cases, but if it did matter to me I'd sure as heck like to know whether or not that interpretation is correct...)

 

So, I believe that my original interpretation was accurate.

Contractors/freelancers/volunteers/whatever aren't really a concern or something addressed by the EULA. Correct? You can't mix licences in your team (Organization), or on a project (Your Project Content). Organization is just group working toward the same purpose or goal. It makes no distinction between relationships. It may have employees (staff), freelancers, volunteers, owners, or whatever. "Your Project Content" is pretty specific, as it says :

In other words, multiple tiers can't be used to work on the same project. Third-party tools and asset are excluded, because they aren't developed for, or working on, your project.

So... if you engage a freelancer/contractor/collaborator/volunteer/friend as an engineer (or developer/artist/designer/writer/whatever) to work on your project, they are A) part of your Organization, and B) creating or working on Your Project Content. And if they need to use Unity to do that, they need to be on same license.

Is that a correct interpretation?

I got confused because in @aliceingameland 's response she said that it applied ot "employee of that organization". Which is a bit problematic because "employee" has a variety of local, legal definitions. In the broadest sense, and employee is someone who is paid to perform work. A contractor or freelancer can be referred to as an employee, though legally the term can differ and have specifics. (which is probably why employee doesn't appear in that section of the EULA).

 

It's definitely a correct interpretation.

 

I'm willing to bet about 90% of Unity users do not abide by this standard. Either because they don't know about it or because they do know about it and think it's ridiculous to pay for another person's Unity subscription when you'll be working with them for a few weeks, maybe more.

I've seen teams using pro contract people using Unity free on multiple occasions. If someone is writing code for your project, they're going to need Unity in order to test and debug their work. So that means teams contracting code people have to either vet their candidates by license or purchase them a subscription prior to doing business.

Seems like it would be a difficult rule to enforce though. How can you make sure that every asset in someone's game was developed and tested using Unity Pro? Does this issue go into Asset Store purchases? I'd assume not, but you could argue that pro users who buy assets made using Unity Free are in breach of this rule. It would be a shoddy argument though.

But hey! Everything is clear as crystal, right?

 

I'm pretty sure that has been explicitly covered. Besides, the terms talk specifically about "Your Project Content", which is specifically defined as stuff that "you" create. There is some potential vagueness about where the limit on "you" is, but I very much doubt it would extend to someone on the other side of an Asset Store purchase.

Freelancers or contractors on the other hand - who knows? (And no clear answer despite being asked many times.)

 

That may not be the case. They are responsible for their adhering to the license they agreed to (which is excluded in under "not acting on behalf.."). But it could be your responsibility if you knowingly engage individuals to develop content for you developed using unlicensed software. (like if you knowingly buy a stolen car, you can't avoid responsibility by saying you didn't steal it yourself). Unity throws a warning if you mix/import content between licenses. While it doesn't prevent anything from working, and clears the tag, it does does make you aware it is happening. Certainly in a suit, they would be more culpable, but you could be held responsible to some degree, if you didn't take action on it.

 

Definitely. Isn't that a separate issue, though? If I'm under the impression that someone is validly using Personal or Professional and end up using their work in something where they were not a part of my team/organisation/entity then they're not "unlicensed" from my point of view.

The catch is, it works both ways. If I'm using Personal or Plus validly and the "you" in the license covers freelancers/contractors then I can't get services or assets from freelancers/contractors with a Pro license without also upgrading my own Pro license.

 

It does? I have different licenses I switch between for different projects (because I am at least trying to do the right thing) and I've never seen such a thing, despite suspecting on a few occasions that I might have forgotten to do the license switch.

(On that note, with fiddly license details like this an automated license manager would be handy. I have to do it by manually renaming folders. Seriously? It's only a pain for people doing the right thing...)

 

Not sure I follow. If they told you they have the correct license, and you are given no reason to doubt their claim, it would be difficult to you accountable. Though remember, this is civil law. If you are big org with deep pockets, a suit could still happen, the result would be up to the court. Though, given the price of lawyers, ensuring proper licensing would be cheaper.

Yea... well... you are correct, technically, that would be true, (or they - or you, could provide them a license/machine with the correct license). Again, it is civil law. My assumption is that something that like would never be pursued. If you legitimately qualify for a personal/plus license, you probably aren't going to be targeted for something like that.

 

Does it? I've never seen it. The meta data tag is easily seen in version control. But I've never seen a warning thrown.

 

The only efficient way of adhering to this rule as it pertains to work-for-hire that I can see is that the "organization" would have to purchase a single license to be used by freelancers when they are actively creating content. Means you could only have one freelancer actively working with you at a time (or have to buy another license).

It just seems like it contradicts UT's "community orientation". If it doesn't apply to contracted work (as I assume many people believed until this thread) then there's really no issue. If you can afford to hire someone on salary, you can afford to supply them with a license of whatever Unity version you're using.

 

Yup. I don't think it appears if you open a project created in one, in a different one, but mixing content definitely does.

Because of the size of our org, software licenses take a few weeks. Wasn't a problem when you could "demo" pro for 30 days. But after personal was introduced, you would have to use personal if you didn't have a license. In a few cases, where an emergency hardware update was required (hard drive usually), and the person had used up thier installs, they might have to use personal for a week or so. Any time they committed, it would throw that warning when someone else pulled. Karl explained what was going on in a thread I posted about it, but I can't find it now.

 

What people do, and what they are actually allowed to do, aren't the same thing. Disagreeing with a license doesn't mean you can avoid the repercussions of violating it.
The reality is, most probably won't get caught or sued for it. That said, Unity licenses are way cheaper than litigation. If you can't afford to pay for the proper license, you definitely can't afford a lawyer or settlement. Whether contracting or contractor, if you are doing it commercially, a license is cheap.

 

Yeah, that's what I meant. I just conveyed it poorly.

 

Wasn't trying to argue that point at all, just stating what I believed to be the case.

The point I was actually trying to make was that this interpretation of the rule is difficult to enforce.

 

Yea, then presumably a boilerplate work contract would include something about them not violating any laws/contracts in the process of doing work for you. You would not only be not responsible, (though again... civil law), you would be a victim in the same sense as the software licensor. That person that violated the software EULA and their contract with you.

 

I totally agree with you. I would probably go a little further and say that many if not most who are violating the terms, are not doing so out of maliciousness or trying to get away with something.

It depends on what you mean by enforce. If you are talking about prevention, then I would agree. That would require some level of DRM. While that may work to a degree on end user things like games and videos, it would be nearly impossible to make work on a development platform like Unity without causing major problems both on their side and the users. It would be more damaging than any problem it would solve.

OTOH, if you mean actually enforcing it with someone (or company) they know to be in violation, I think it would be fairly trivial. They could simply notify them and offer them, to avoid legal actions, the opportunity to just upgrade their licenses to the proper one for their situation. I believe most would take that option, and it would benefit both parties and not impact development. Anyone in the position to fight it is probably well above the requirements for pro, meaning they wouldn't have much to argue. And while IANAL, and most of us aren't either, I'll be willing to bet cash money that legal language is much clearer than any of us would interpret. It's difficult imagine situation where there would be any benefit or advantage to "fighting" it.

Despite that, Unity has time and time again, shown that they are more interested in working with customers than alienating or punishing them. The amount of times they have changed policy/prices/features based on feedback from users and been willing to work with users is pretty amazing (especially in market that is part of the games industry). I believe they aren't the type of company that would spend a lot of time and effort hunting down and suing people. In fact, I don't believe I have heard of any cases of that happening at all (though I haven't looked). Even though, as you pointed out, it most definitely happens.

 

That is nice to hear

But, you're saying "in the future".

I'm working on a project *now*, and as I stated before, yes, I'm working with a small "team" of freelancers, but none of us is part of the organisation which is "hiring" (in Italy has a broader meaning) us with a "contract" (but we only signed that since our collaboration is legally considered LESS than a work by contract, it's called "occasional performance", and only has the value of an oral agreement). All of us have been "hired" by a single "boss"/company (sorry, I really have to put quotes everywhere) who *probably* doesn't even own a single Unity License. He's just the project manager.

Only 2 of the "on verbal agreement" teammatse are (at the moment) supposed to have an actual interaction with the Unity Project, by working on the same asset server or other types of project sharing and cooperation systems. Those are me, and the background artist/level designer.

I don't know which version this other teammate is using, and even if he told me, how could I be sure he's not lying? Should I sign a separate contract with every possible teammate my "boss" could be "hiring"?

I'm in charge of producing the final build but - with such confusion and possible interpretations of the EULA - should I continue to work, with the risk of being sued for some reason? I bet legal costs are going to be higher than subscribing to the highest subscription tier.

But, switching to Pro would be overkill for me at the moment. I actually don't need Pro features. It would cost me way too much to even consider accepting the job.

I really hope that freelancers are not going to be affected by this.

In the meantime I have to continue working on the project. I made an agreement. I have deadlines. Media already talked about the project. I'm in a Limbo, and the Support Staff's answers are often in contradiction with most things that have been said here.

I can only state that I'm not trying to abuse the EULA in any way, and that I consider the use of my Unity license as fair, for a freelancer.

But again, does it really matter what I think and what my intentions when there's an EULA I should be observing - an EULA that is obviously and repeatedly been brought to the forum attention so many times in many months?

Should I consider myself to be in a "state of grace" until you clear up the EULA with your legals?
I can't afford to stop working, and can't afford to face any legal issue at the moment.

Am I just worrying too much?

 

I hade the same doubt some time ago. If I remember correctly the Support answered that I was free to create any asset with any license, to be used by everyone whatever license they owned. I suggest you to contact the support to get an official answer.

 

Asset store content is third-party content. The EULA specifically says:

--

No, because it wouldn't be third-party content.

 

Extending what Zombiegorilla said, you could just exclusively "license" the output from your team mates and get around it.

I don't think Unity meant for this to affect small teams, but it quite obviously does. The reply above stating that companies have been fine for years shows that they weren't thinking about small teams when they wrote that statement.