So based on that (flawed logic) If I made an illegal gambling service using XNA, Microsoft would be in danger of being shutdown? If I made an illegal gambling service using Java, Sun Microsystems /Oracle Corporation would be in danger of being shutdown? If I made an illegal gambling service using Flash, Adobe would be in danger of being shutdown? If I made an illegal gambling service using Pen and paper, the providers of said pen and paper would be in danger of being shutdown? Its pure nonsense. Unity like all those mentioned above are just tools and they can be misused just like any tool can. If anything the change to the EULA and the requirement of a license would suggest the opposite is now true. That if a flaw was found in Unity and I had their gambling license one would assume they might be liable. If UT want to develop a gambling based add-on, some accredited version of Unity that full fills the various legal requirements that's fine and they can charge whatever they like for it. The problem is that like it or not, if you use Unity in a gambling app, even if its just as the front end for displaying pretty graphics, you still have to buy their license according to the current EULA. I really don't understand how people cannot see the fundamental problem here. Its not that developers want the gambling version of Unity for free, or that they deny there are heavy restrictions involved with gambling software, its just that they don't want to be locked into buying into Unity's version if they don't want to. They don't want to have to pay a license for something they don't need or wont be using if they already have an accredited back-end for dealing with the actual gambling aspects. The same argument goes for embedded and streaming, though overall its the fact that Unity has changed what we are allowed to do with products that we create and build using Unity that is the heart of the matter.