Standard Asset on Github

Can I put a modified script / shader from the Standard Assets in a Github repository? If so, what license should I add if any?

 

According to @Andy-Touch , license for standard shaders is MIT.
https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/unity-shader-sources-license.433178/

Standard assets ( https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/32351 ) would be subject to standard asset store license:
https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms

Part 3.8 of the agreement.

Meaning, I wouldn't put standard assets onto github.

If in doubt, contact support.

 

Meh, too late.

 

Saying that you (probably) broke Unity's terms of service on Unity's forum is probably not the brightest idea. Just saying...

 

Yep.

The good idea would be to clarify the situation with @Buhlaine, @aliceingameland or someone else from unity team first.

Putting stuff onto github without first verifying your rights may result in your bright gamedev career running into some serious trouble early.

 

So I looked around and found out that the script/shader I forked on Github, Global Fog, is already forked on Github and has been there for over a year.

Coincidentally (or perhaps not), the license I put my files under is the same as the one in that repository since the project I forked is from that same person, an employee of Unity Japan.

I'm guessing I'm pretty safe on this particular instance. Lucky me .

 

Keep in mind that github has very interesting EULA:
If a project does not specify a license, then you're still allowed to fork and study it on github, BUT you are not allowed to redistribute or actuoally use the project.
(See part F of terms and coniditons: https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/ ). Make sure license is present within the repo when you fork it.

 

Sorry for the delays!

I'm going to go ahead and look into this, getting in touch with our legal team right now to insure the information above is correct.

Edit - > Due to global holidays I can't speak for how soon I can get back to the subject, but I'll make sure I relay it when I get it!

 

@Buhlaine : I've bumped into similar situation myself, so it would be great to see an official response regarding the matter.

 

Hello!

After touching base with our Legal team, the conclusion was the same as the one @neginfinity mentioned above. Officially the Standard Assets fall under the Asset Store EULA (https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms).

 

So, to summarize: no standard assets on github.

Thanks for checking it with legal team. ^_^

 

I don't think that summary goes far enough: No Asset Store assets on GitHub public repos. They aren't open source and they aren't PD.

It drives me to distraction when I find my art assets (free or otherwise) in full original size on GH (basically its being distributed on the internet illegally). Even more so when there's zero easy contact info (I'm not interested in signing up to GitHub) so the easiest thing to do is DMCA them.

And then you get utterly outraged emails from the people who were in clear breach of my copyright because "you risked my repo". Literally zero self-awareness of who is in the wrong just makes my eyes roll.

This is why we can't have free assets from asset providers without annoying those IP holders.
We can have nice things but [some*] users need to wake the heck up to their obligations.

 

Sorry for the necro, but as I understand it, this means that we can't publish Standard Assets on GitHub/GitLab/etc. in the case of public access. What if it is a private repository and is thus not available to the public, but only accessible to the actual dev-team? Is there a difference at that point?

 

I am not a lawyer and don't speak for Unity or any asset creators.

The problem above is that the repos were publicly accessible. If it's a private repo, it doesn't matter if it's Github or your own private server that's storing your repo. It's only available to you and those you approve, and so you are handling any copyright matters yourself.

At the time, Github only offered like 1 free private repo, but now they allow multiple, so it's kind of a different question now. (You could pay for them before, but that's not how the general community talked about Github. If you meant private, you stated it. It was assumed public otherwise.)

 

Thank you for your clarification. I really appreciate it.