License on code in forum posts

I don't live in the US. So that makes me care way less about people being sued.

The real difference comes in that code is functional, rather then artistic.

Two people developing a solution to the same problem will likely come up with code that is near identical. Especially if they are following the same style guidelines. Indeed, there are counties that have specifically excluded code from patent and copy right laws for this reason.

Doesn't this make it more difficult to sell you project? And open you up to more potential copyright claims?

If your code just bears a striking resemblance to someone else's code, this can be attributed to solving a similar problem in a similar way. If you code actually has a note saying "I took this code from websiteX" then its basically stating up front you don't have full ownership. Which will likely trouble anyone buying the project. And attribution isn't a defense against copyright claims.

(I'm not arguing against the practice. Its actually a really good idea that I might start doing. I like the idea of being able to trace back to whatever discussion originally inspired the algorithm. I'm just pointing out that these comments will actually make it harder to defend that you have full rights to use and sell your code.)

 

I had an opportunity in past, to work with similar person in past. That was for a while. Nothing pleasant long term. Yet somehow haven't heard that particular term, or maybe i missed it out.

 

Probably if selling to someone source code, that may be potentially problematic. But would matter, if just selling a game? Unless someone start studding source code with comments in.

But depends what and how code has been used. If for example using MIT licenced libraries to build on top final product, there shouldn't be an issue. If random algorithm is found, somewhere in the net, then source may be questionable. Specially when no licence is stated.

I like add some references to online source in my code, when for example learned something new, in case I want come back in future and study code / method again. Mostly I got such comments as part of prototypes.

 

Personally I am a little sloppy with personal or prototype projects, I leave to to where I found stuff (if I do actually use something... more likely I was just inspired by someone's approach and wrote the same thing myself just using that approach). Commercially, if we ever do use something like that (which is nearly never) full attribution is included and reference to the license with screenshots/pdfs dumped the project docs for the future. Particularly at Disney were IP is king, everything we used was vetted and licensed. And in a few cases where the licenses didn't fit our needs, we contacted the authors and made special arrangements. (and more than once... just bought the company that made it). My current studio is smaller, but we are still careful, but if a license is expensive or sketchy, we'll just do without. We rather build our own solution than temp lawsuits.

 

In my project management training it was touched on as one of a bunch of cognitive biases we should be aware of when making decisions. Combined with Confirmation Bias it can be especially tricky to deal with - only collect evidence that backs up your existing position, then refuse to believe that you didn't collect evidence effectively.

Probably some of that, too.

 

Speaking as artist, but not noting down where you pulled stuff from, like some random google image, or maybe a sound clip, can be a pain the dick later on. You forget where you found it, you forget what the license was. Then you get all anxious, and waste time trying to fix mistake.

Next project i do I gonna keep a running notepad just for that reason.

Also be careful doing google search for "free" or "royalty free". A lot of times if you actually go to the link it is not the same license as google search is returning.

 

Assuming that you are indeed allowed to use the code then it makes it easier to sell, precisely because of the traceability.

The fact that sources are all cited reduces risk. If I didn't miss anything with regards to licensing then groovy, we've got confirmation that whatever is there is good to go. If it turns out that I missed something and don't have full ownership then that code is known and marked, which makes it an easily fixable problem.

Also, if I've marked it then it's a good sign that I wasn't intentionally doing anything dodgy, which helps building trust. Making a mistake is one thing. Being generally fast and loose with licensing is quite another.

 

If you're a part of a business with or pursuing certain types of ISO compliance this kind of thing is required, and not just for 3rd party stuff. I've worked on projects where there was a paper trail leading back from every source commit -> design change -> requirement change -> customer request / issue, with relevant approvals along the way. The intent is that for any line of code, someone could look up documentation explaining why it currently is what it is, and the full history of how it got there.

For games that kind of thing is ridiculous overkill. For stuff like a banking system... a pretty good idea.

 

Can we see those warning points in our own profiles? That would be really cool.

Spoiler

 

By the way, there is a creative commons license for anything on the Unity wiki.

http://wiki.unity3d.com/index.php/Main_Page

The forums should have something like that. Even if permission to use is implicit or almost explicit ("Here, put this script in your Editor folder!") it's better to know the scope of that permission, especially if the codebase is ever transferred/licensed/sold/published and lawyers are involved. Then again, I'm amazed there are so many public projects on github that have no specified license.

 

My rule of thumb is: check license before downloading, only download stuff that is uncomplicated to handle. If it requires attribution, it's already dead to me. I don't use google image search much and wouldn't trust their license tags anyway. I try to focus on industry standard sites with clear sources and licenses, like photobash.org and textures.com.

Speaking of which, can someone explain to me how or rather why pexels.com works?

https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/
https://www.pexels.com/faq/

I'm guessing the site is monetized over Adobe Stock Photo referrals, but do they pay the photographers that upload their content there too, or do they just do it "for the exposure"?

Better not, some of us can get quite competitive. x]

 

@technicat I tend not to touch github projects, without specified license. Maybe only if to check, if it works.

 

The issue is there's only so many ways to do something, it's kinda like music I guess. Most pop music released follows the same chord progressions and there's many songs using the same notes / keys.

Unless you're just copying and pasting an entire applications code base then it's difficult at best to start pointing fingers.

 

GitHub projects are MOSTLY terrible. Pretty much from the whole git hub being a free option thing. While there are few out there that are classic (sf type) shared projects stuff, most are people's play projects and tons of stuff people shouldn't be sharing (legally). Avoid unless you are familiar with the author.

 

There is a difference between good faith argument (what I describe) and trolling (what you describe).

A good argument is the fastest way to learn, see your own errors, and better understand the strengths and weaknesses of your beliefs.

I've had enough arguments with @AndersMalmgren where he shared bits of code, included the functionality he produced with that code, and showed his work. This demonstrated good faith in argument. Period.

I may not agree with him at all times, but he has my respect because he's willing to argue his point of view, in a meaningful way, by bringing real world examples and experiences to the table (including code).

From my perspective, by doing so, he brings value to these boards. For that, I forgive a bit of trolling. I get that not everyone sees things the way I do and that's fine. We can see things differently. In my book, Anders is a top notch member of the community, even if I think his hankie is a little silly.

 

Sure will be many bad projects. Like anywhere, where public got access to. Same with tons of cats videos But there are also good scripts/algorithms/projects.

I tend to look not only C#, but as well other languages that I am familiar with. That expand range of possible solutions. For example python and java script projects offer allot of already proven options.

Personally I look for sources, which are valid in my project, I got no experience in specific area to produce for my own (i.e. specific algorithms), and is kept relatively up to date. All of course with valid licence.

Of course, I can not guarantee, that someone script with MIT licence for example, has not been stolen previously, with different licence. All taken with care and personal judgement as mentioned.

I think github is much better option regarding genuinity of the licence, than Unity Asset Store assets. I suspect many assets are created based on github projects, rather than vice versa. And here I wouldn't be surprised, to discover lots of broken licences agreements. But who will really know?

In the end, anyone can write own solution, based on learned source. However such libraries as github are used, these are amazing places, to dig pearls from the deep ocean of knowledge. Is like watching/reading something valuable on the internet and then switch to procrastinate with youtube cats (exaggerated example). That is personal choice, which path to take.

 

...it might appear that way because of the many, many posts removed over time.

 

Yea,I think you are right when looking at gh projects for a specific purpose. like an inventory project or shader or rendering project, that sort of thing. And there is some good stuff. (the ocean renderer and post effects come to mind) If you look at general unity projects on gh (mostly games), many are just people using gh as vcs not a project sharing and largely consist of a thousands of Asset Store assets and one or two poorly assembled test scenes.

 

All the code I post is for research purposes only! Also, I spend all-day every day de-compiling every app from the App store and scanning it for code I posted on the forum. Don't even think about using a 6-line "rotating cube" example that I posted back in 2014 because I will catch you!

Just kidding, obviously

 

To me, arguing in good faith involves being willing to change your own views when presented with appropriate evidence, logic, reasoning, etc.

 

yeah, there is talking to people, and then there is using another person to validate talkign to yourself.

 

I still approach these forums looking to learn something.

The only real way to learn something from these boards is to see real work or real results and there are only a handful of guys willing to actually show their work on these boards. I've had arguments and discussions with many, many people, but only a tiny handful have actually posted production code or shown parts of their process.

I don't care if someone changes their views or not. I care if someone changes my views. That's where the value is.

Argument is not about winning, losing, or getting someone to admit they're wrong. It's about coming out with a better understanding than you had going in.

 

Sure. Just be careful, if someone changes your view convincingly in wrong way.
Then there is a point, where you may know more / different and you want to discuss that different. If someone is locked on only one view, it becomes really-really difficult to discuss anything else. Is just one way talk.

Mind, many people here work in different areas of industry, as well as academia and hobbiest. They share their expertise here very often. Don't forget that. Is less relevant if they show games in production. Sure would be nice. But so far assistance from others and their different point of view on problems didn't failed me. Just brought up wider perspective.
Either way, there is plenty subjects here, discussing details of certain aspects in game dev.

But if someone tries tell me that "most" / "everyone" and similar does this and that, without actually trying explaining reasoning behind, I am loosing trust in persons expertise. I don't want such advisor in anything. Even did happen to me occasionally. But at least I am happy, when someone points me wrong, so I can get wiser.

 

Agreed. And if someone is not willing to actively re-examine what they think they know or shift their perception in the light of new information then that impacts the overall discussion's ability to evolve, and therefore its potential to change or refine my own perspective. There's some value in testing your own ideas by arguing them against fixed opinions, but not as much as there is in discussion where both sides evolve.

To be clear, I know that this tangent arose from mention of a specific person, but I'm speaking generally here.

I guess it depends on the discussions you're having? I personally don't find a lot of value in looking at snippets of someone else's code or project specific process in the context of most stuff I discuss here these days.

 

Lets try to get back topic.

I take responsibility for some of this, a user post a trolling / name calling post, they got warned which again temp banned them for many violations. Other posters were responding to prior comments of that user, so pointed out they won’t be responding, and reminded folks that you banned for just being a jerk, if you do it multiple times. I thought it clarify and stop that line of questions. It didn’t. So to be clear...
1) a user with a strike through their name is banned (poissbly temp). They can’t respond, try to avoid responding to them.
2) avoid banning by simply following the rules. Being a troll, calling names, aggressively, inaccurately representing yourself, and negatively affecting community will buy you an exit real quick. Play nice or you don’t get to play.

That said... code in the forums... go!

 

Thank you for your investigation. This was really helpful. It's amazing how asking a simple question can result in a debate about the meaning of life after cutting and pasting a little code. As it happens I know a thing or two about code reuse and when lawyers need to get involved. Your answer gave me pointers to what I needed - thank you.

My conclusion is that I need a lawyer to look at it. There is an argument for there being IP in the contribution and Unity does not have a clear licensing terms on code posted to the forum - shame. I tend to concur with MrArcher, one is "probably" OK but "probably" can become a real problem when my game is making millions Actually I want to release the code in an open source asset, but to do so I need to own the copyright and I do not. since I have no idea how the code would be reused under the open source license there could be someone making millions out of it and I need to protect those downstream users.

Thanks also to the others who tried to answer in a productive way. It's true that for trivial bits of code there would be no problem, but what I'm looking at is, arguably, not trivial. So caution is advised.

 

They do have.
https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service/site-and-communities

I think this is a very clear non-commercial use only, learning license if I'm not mistaken. Although obviously I'm not a lawyer, always consult with a lawyer, blablabla.

 

Is it though? Based on the wording of the license none of the code in the tutorials are allowed to be used in a commercial way but they have always stated the opposite.

 

Are we though? Or it is just a gentlemen's agreement that they won't pursue it?
https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service/instructor-led-training

 

I'm not a lawyer either, I don't need to be in this case. Thank you for spotting this, it is very clear I cannot put the code in an open source project (or a commercial one).

 

Is this even realistic, when to learn and further to write some beginner projects, people use base from training resources?

They may in the end not be anything like original. But scripts will be mostly derived, since all share same principles, while usually not presenting anything complex. Then lots of used utilities are already provided by Unity in software.
So if someone lets say make tutorial about cinamchine, something very basics, how ridiculously would be to pursue someone, for infringing tutorial

Yet apparently sample codes from Unity are ok to use in commercial products ....

I think whole licence thing is, just to prevent copy tutorial resources / video and promote them as own.

 

Derivation should be used on the same legal way. Not how you interpret it. If you copy their code and make *some* changes, that's derived. If you read their code, write your own based on what you saw in their, that's not derived. Obviously you should not copy word by word.

Yes, but this has nothing to do what we're discussing here.

 

I got what you are saying, but look as an example, why the licence to scripts for sake of argument, from tutorial is ridiculous.

Case study to random tutorial.
https://learn.unity.com/tutorial/unity-navmesh#5c7f8528edbc2a002053b499

Spoiler

Code (CSharp):

1. using UnityEngine;
2. using UnityEngine.AI;
3. using UnityStandardAssets.Characters.ThirdPerson;
4.  
5. public class PlayerController : MonoBehaviour {
6.  
7.     public Camera cam;
8.  
9.     public NavMeshAgent agent;
10.  
11.     public ThirdPersonCharacter character;
12.  
13.     void Start()
14.     {
15.         agent.updateRotation = false;
16.     }
17.  
18.     // Update is called once per frame
19.     void Update ()
20.     {
21.         if (Input.GetMouseButtonDown(0))
22.         {
23.             Ray ray = cam.ScreenPointToRay(Input.mousePosition);
24.             RaycastHit hit;
25.  
26.             if (Physics.Raycast(ray, out hit))
27.             {
28.                 agent.SetDesitnation(hit.point);
29.             }
30.         }
31.  
32.         if (agent.remainingDistance > agent.stoppingDistance)
33.         {
34.             character.Move(agent.desiredVelocity, false, false);
35.         }
36.         else
37.         {
38.             character.Move(Vector3.zero, false, false);
39.         }
40.  
41.     }
42. }

Obviously I copied the code from tutorial, instead writing manually. Now I can do whatever suits me, to extend functionality. In the end is so basics. Obviously I will derive from it in this case, even if I change naming. In some cases there are Dead Laws, or whatever they call, which exists, but no one really execute them.

Spoiler

Like in England in Yorkshire, English person can shoot legal Scottish person, as long they carry bow and arrow. (Unless this law has been removed finally?)

Sure technically you can sue me, but who will really benefit from that?

Just my few $$ to discussion.

 

If something is so basic that you could derive it from first principles yourself then I'm not sure that worrying about licensing is practical.

I use for loops all over my code. The authors of the books I used when I was a teenager learning this stuff aren't going to come after me. Even if they did, how could any prove that I'd specifically copied their code? They can't, because it's so simple that it's all substantially the same, and any competent coder could come up with it fresh on the spot.

 

That my exactly point.

 

I can guarantee 100% that code posted here and the wiki has been used in multi-million dollar games.

 

@Antypodish, then I don't understand your point? You're talking about people being able to sue you because you wrote some code so basic that anyone working in the same domain, doing a similar task, and who learned from Unity's other materials could have written the same thing without having even seen the code in question.

Then there's the fact that the code in question is only a subset of the training materials referred to by the license, and it is made public with the specific purpose of people learning from it, ie: writing similar code themselves.

So my point was that even though you're strictly not supposed to just copy-paste it into your own stuff, and that would be a bad idea for other reasons, I don't think it could be practically enforced.

Compare that to, say, grabbing a bunch of Unity's stuff from GitHub, building your own stuff based on it, maybe modifying it along the way, then claiming the whole derived work as your own... I'm sure that would be practically enforcable. It would be very difficult to argue, for instance, that you just happened to accidentally write a Post Processing stack that was substantially identical to theirs.

 

Thats completely correct @angrypenguin.
My point is, why even bother licencing something of such low profile (basics generic codes), which can be replicated even coincidentally, as well as copied pasted.

Therefore, as you stated,

Something like dead law. Is there but never used,

Spoiler

or just sitting for some noob to sue for some stupid reason

 

Well, the license isn't just for the code. The code is just a small portion of what's included in the training materials, website, forum discussions, so on and so forth. They're probably thinking about bigger things, like stopping people from copy-pasting official Unity training materials or blog content or whatnot and reusing it as their own.

 

Its a very likely thing thats what they do. Why ask about licensing if you are not using the code in your project?

 

"Cutting and pasting a game together" and "using a snippet of code from the Internet" are at very different places in a very broad spectrum.

 

True, but those that do that instead of reading the Unity API reference and learn the tool and write their own code are more leaned to cut and pasting. I'm sure of it, even though I dont have any kind of evidence

We sometime look at other peoples code to learn something new, for example we use stencil buffers in our game, and we made that looking at others people code. But we didn't use it directly.

Most code here and on unity answer are trash, just beware.

 

Yes, be wary of just blindly copying my code into any project you're working on. I have a habit of opening notepad, writing some quick same code, and then posting it without having performed any testing.

 

I know, right? Clearly none of us should use Unity. It's from the Internet.

 

The group mentality on these forums are funny and tragic to watch. Will be sure to include it in my post morten in a few years

Edit: doubting someone is a professional is apperntly a personal attack, but writing all kinds of things about me, that's fine. Double standards in moderation.

Edit: and @Ony i haven't blocked you, I don't do lame S*** like that.

Edit: that's my gravatar avatar, I happen to like suits. But I'm happy in a t-shirt too.

 

Oysters and champagne, the commitment to your subtle trolling is commendable!
I like the beard .

Just imagine everyone starts off with a hidden stat at 100%, that gets factored into decision-making regarding that user. And every time they do something that rubs people the wrong way, even if it's "technically not against the rules", that stat decreases a bit. And once it's quite low, that person will be much sooner over the threshold for moderator action than e.g. any noob or any long standing member that kept their "hidden stat" in good health.

 

Ill have to require Unity to lower my subscription fee, since I cant use all of the services I pay for to its full extent

Edit: about that stat thing, have you seen that black mirror episode about social media?

 

No, I only watched a few episodes long ago and found it to be too depressing. But I imagine it's similar to this: