[Question] Are you allowed to post you project on github (open source)

In the future I would like to post my current project on github so that other people can contribute and learn. Is this is allowed? I will only have my own code and assets.

 

As long as it's your own code you should be fine.

 

It's fine as long as you don't commit any proprietary assets that you do not own. It might be a bit tricky though, to edit your .gitignore files to include exactly those files that need to be shared.

Aside from that, it's advised to switch to text based format for asset serialization, if you expect to work with other people. And it's better to make it a rule to always import new assets to generate necessary meta files before committing them, so you won't have different meta files for the same assets between developers.

 

Thanks, what do you mean with text based asset serialisation?

 

Yes, as long as it doesn't include standard assets or anything with default asset store license.

https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/standard-asset-on-github.447176/#post-3048170
https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/standard-asset-on-github.447176/#post-2893087

If you developed every part of the project by yourself, you're fine.

 

It's 'Asset Serialization' mode in the editor settings:

• https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/class-EditorManager.html

 

Erm...what counts as a standard asset? The generic buttons, dropdown, input fields in my UI?

Asking for a friend >.>

 

Anything unity tech created is fine.

 

No, it isn't.

Read the thread I linked.

Any package - by unity or not - that is from asset store and is under default asset store license cannot be placed onto github. This is a possible oversight, of course, but this is how it is.

All standard assets bundled with unity, amusingly, fall under the default license.
https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/32351

^^^ No exceptions listed.

That includes 3rd person controller, car controller, rolling ball controller, prototyping package, etc.


The ones you CAN put onto github are unity shader source and post processing stack. Those have exceptions
Here's post processing stack license:

 

Better grab the pitchforks and start rounding up all the illegal stuff on github then.

While yes, it's the same licence, there are zero incidents where they enforce it for stuff like this. Technically it is illegal to include them in assets for sale on the store and yet the asset store team deliberately approves them.

Be technical if you want, but it's a non issue in reality.

 

If I'm not mistaken, there's a statement somewhere that explicitly allows including resources from those assets published by Unity Technologies in other assets that users may upload to Asset Store.

So, probably it's just that they don't allow such items to be relicensed under different terms.

 

When I was first publishing on the store I asked these questions and there were no legal exceptions. Afaik, this has not changed however you can find Unity's standard assets on lots of public repo's and all over the asset store.

 

Not funny.

The answer is still "no". Even if everybody is doing that, and even if there were zero attempts to enforce the license, because it is against asset store EULA.

Go read the thread I linked, and go read asset store EULA, appendix 1 part 2, end user rights and obligations.

 

I did.

Go look at whats actually happening in real life?

 

Ah... it took me a while before I could remember where I saw that statement. Please read 1.1.e for the reference:

• https://unity3d.com/asset-store/sell-assets/submission-guidelines

 

Cool, looks like they added it last August finally.

 

Well, In real life section 2 of appendix I is still part of the agreement.

 

So basically we both have valid points. A) It's legal, B) No one actually cares.

 

Nope.

You're forbidden to put standard assets onto github by asset store eula. Until the situation changes, going against agreement is a bad idea, even if nobody seems to care right now. That's if your idea is to have something published.

I'd suggest to contact unity legal team if you want to have this fixed. Otherwise the best idea would be to avoid uploading anything that has standard assets in it onto github.

 

Nope what? That the points aren't valid?

I understand you're fanatically on the technical side of this, but it's been this way for a really, really long time and only just last Aug (apparently) they added a single exception for the asset store to change the long-standing (illegal) exception (which they literally supported, irregardless of the technical illegality) so publishers can include Standard Assets in their published stuff.

I'm not saying its some grand idea or is legal, I'm saying based on Unity's past, they don't care if you do.

 

Yes, your point isn't valid.

There shouldn't be anything in your project that can be used to shut it down, and uploading stuff onto github with current eula most likely counts as copyright infrignement. I.e. piracy.

Even though the situation is idiotic, with current eula standard assets shouldn't be uploaded to public repository.

"Nobody cares now" is not a good argument, and frankly reminds me of all the fan made projects nintendo shut down in the past. In some cases nobody cared for 8 years.

If you don't like the situation, pester unity to change their standard asset agreement. "No one cares, just ignore agreement you accepeted" is a bad advice.

 

Well I suppose that ends my participation here.

 

Well, have a nice day. If you don't like how things are, poke @Buhlaine or someone else to have this fixed.

 

I have to say I'm with @neginfinity on this one. Is it stupid? Sure, but did you agree to it? Yes, yes you did by using the resources. To be truthful I'm a bit surprised you care about the licencing and T&Cs as little as you do given that you yourself are an Asset Store publisher

Don't think I'd like to publicly announce that I don't care about their agreement if I were you

 

On the standard assets it really depends on your jurisdiction. In many cases the actions of Unity could be taken as giving implicit permission to distribute the standard assets. In my country it's not just the wording of a contract, it's how the terms of the contract are explained and enforced. Unity could enforce the terms of they wanted to. But that would constitute a policy change, which they would have to communicate and give people time to adjust too.

Either way, Unity suing game developers for giving away free stuff isn't smart business. It's not going to happen.

I don't think anyone addressed this properly. The standard assets refers to things made by Unity that can be downloaded for free from the asset store. It's a legal grey area.

Anything that's included in Unity itself, like the generic buttons, is fine.

 

Thanks

 

Well... what else would you use it for if not for your own code?

 

Have a question, if I am using the Adam Character Pack which has a license that states the asset can only be used for non-commercial use, I would be fine to use the asset in my project as long as its non-commercial and I am not redistributing the asset correct? I always wondered if we are allowed to use Free Unity assets in non-commercial projects.

 

Necroing this thread as I'm riled by my latest round of DMCA activity whack-a-mole smashing github repos which contain my Asset Store content. "I don't care" is not my position. My position is: I sold or gave free x/y/z on the Asset Store under an agreement and anyone who can't respect that agreement will get a DMCA when I find it- which happens because google scrapes it.

I give away thousands (literally) of skyboxes assets a month. If it ends up being more work DMCA-ing idiots who can't play by the rules they agreed to then eventually I'll pull my free asset off the store. I don't want to but I'm tired of idiots giving my stuff away without my permission.

Interestingly I believe as Licensor in the EULA I am entitled to revoke the license permission to use by these foolish people as they are in breach. If I could connect the repos to Unity accounts I'd consider trying to actually action that. I'm not sure its practically possible or even technically so in the Asset Store system. Which kinda makes that point in the EULA not much use.