Unity 4 New EULA Restrictions

Brilliantly said.

Except the infinitely blurry line between a thing called a game and a thing called a server; everything a user connects to is by definition a server.

And the fact you could build Gaikai on windows just as well as Linux.

If they want to solely restrict Gaikai style technology, just limit the ratio of server GPU instructions to client GPU instructions or require the end user have a Unity built product to access the server's content. It's just that simple.

 

I disagree with "they should take as much time as they need to get it right". They already made the new EULA, and it wasn't right, and they should probably clear up the confusion quickly, not five months from now. If the new EULA doesn't affect you at all, then sure, it will seem fine to you to wait an infinite amount of time. But if, for example, the new EULA is going to stay in its current form and ban authoritative servers, then I will need to revert my game to 3.5 to continue working on it. I already spent a lot of time converting my animation code over to Mecanim, and if I'm going to have to get rid of all that and go back to 3.5, I want to know that sooner rather than later. Each day of not knowing if I need to revert will make the conversion more costly.

 

Since you have a current game that is directly affected by this, have you contacted UT directly about it?

 

It doesn't prevent you from deploying there at all. You can deploy to anywhere that is capable of running. If you are just making software to run on a device, it doesn't apply to you.

What it says is that you can't sell/distribute devices where unity provides the primary interface for that device without a special license. Unless you are making/selling hardware, you don't have to worry.

 

No, it doesn't say anything about selling hardware. It says:

"You may not directly or indirectly distribute Licensee Content installed on more than 50 electronic devices or systems if such Licensee Content provides the user interface or primary functionality of such electronic device or system without a separate license from Unity."

The "indirectly" part means you are held liable even if you sell your app to someone and they put it in a kiosk.

 

Selling is a type of distributing. But you are missing the key word "installed" in that sentence. If you or someone installs your app in an existing kiosk, then it would be an application, and the user interface would be windows(probably), and the primary functionality would be to display kiosk software. In the case of a kiosk the "user" is the company or person that is using it as a display, not the person viewing it. "You" refers to the party distributing the device installed with the software.

The "indirectly" means you could be liable if you were part of the process. In other words, if you were contracted to provide custom kiosk software and you didn't licence or ensure the party contracting you had a licence then of course you could be liable, since you are the developer. Which makes sense. If you are contracted to make kiosk software of that nature, ensure that licence in place by the distributor, or handle that for them as part of the contract.

If someone took something you made and stuck it on kiosk without your knowledge and permission, you wouldn't be liable as you are not indirectly distributing.

The usage restriction applies if you are distributing devices with unity based software installed that provides the primary interface/functionality. Apps/software installed after the fact don't apply because that isn't "embedded" in the first place. Most kiosks are windows/linux boxes running kiosk applications, so... not embedded.

 

I think Unity might have made an assumption that all gaming machine and kiosk manufactures make a pile of money and so are ripe for plucking, I can tell you first hand this is far from true. Gaming machine and kiosk production in Europe at least is a cut throat business with very poor profit margins per machine or device. The people that make the money on machines is the people that buy and operate them not the OEM. We could not afford until recently to even put an OS on the things like Microsoft CE etc, definitely couldn't afford any kind of middleware and thinks like BINK were like a distant dream to us as developers. That's why if we did have an OS on the machines it was either our own embedded making or at a push Linux, but mostly our own system. We even had to roll our own video codecs to play animation clips. Even the very big companies that I can't name for legal reasons use their own in house systems.

If Unity tries to charge even one extra dollar for use on embedded devices or gaming machines and kiosks, I can guarantee them they will have almost no takers from those industries. The developers would get put under extreme pressure to find a free alternative. I am in that industry and was seriously contemplating using Unity 4 for our machines, but not now, I'll have to go back to our own engine and just add more functionality, and upgrade the base renderer from DX9 to DX11, a chore I wanted to avoid as I've already done it once from DX7 to 9.

If it's online gaming that this EULA is trying to sting then here also Unity are under a falsehood. I have a mate who has his own online content provider company to create online games for 3rd parties, He makes a good living out of it but is not rich, the companies making the millions from his work are those he sells the software to that place it on their servers, he would not be able to pass any extra Unity cost on to them as he too is in a highly competitive developer climate. To give Unity a figure, During the 90's I was parts of a development team making gaming machines, We were a very famous manufacturer with market dominance of 55% of all European gaming machines, On 20,000 machines sold per year we made UKP 80 per machine sold profit!!!!! So how in the hell with that kind of margin could we have used any kind of licensed middleware?

 

The problem here is you're using a definition of 'embedded' that is not in the EULA. The EULA doesn't care if the app is installed afterwards or if it runs windows/linux - that's not in the given definition of embedded.

Unless you specifically prevent them from doing so... you've could potentially have given permission.

 

No. Because if that was the case, anyone could say that their kiosk was just "a computer whose primary functionality is not displaying kiosk software but this one happens to be displaying kiosk software". The point of a kiosk is that its primary functionality is not to be a windows machine that does a lot of stuff, it's a kiosk that does one particular thing, whatever the kiosk software installed on it is. This has been gone over earlier in the thread a few times. As was mentioned, there's no way to run a Unity kiosk without an underlying OS and graphics layer such as Windows, since those are the only platforms Unity runs on. So merely having an OS doesn't stop a kiosk from being a kiosk.

Also, no. The law doesn't work that way because it can't; it would leave a loophole where you could sell something to them with a wink and a nod and they could "accidentally" break the terms of the license and you wouldn't be responsible. The way I've usually seen it work is that you have to specifically give the person your own license agreement that carries over the terms of the first license agreement (in this case, the Unity EULA), and then if they break it, the first party still holds you responsible (Unity sues you) but you can sue the second party for damages incurred by the first (you sue the kiosk client). So you're not allowed to sell someone kiosk software and then say "I had no idea they'd install it on a kiosk"; that's the whole point of the "indirect" language.

 

It does state that it must be installed before hand. That statement says "installed"... past tense, happening prior to distribution. It only applies to software already installed on devices to be distributed. If someone ships a device without the software, then it is not "installed", and this first part doesn't apply.

If a device runs something like windows/linux(or whatever), then the OS is the user interface for the device and its primary functionality is to run user installed apps. So then the second part wouldn't apply.

The embedded qualification requires it be preinstalled ("installed" at the time of distribution) AND be the primary function or interface. If you make software to be installed on an existing kiosk, none of that applies.

Sure if you gave them permission, and didn't ensure you or they had a license, you could be liable. Since you don't have the license to create software for that purpose. That is the "indirect" part. It's not something that could inadvertently occur.

If I were going to make embedded software that uses unity, and it fit that definition, I would just just include in the contract that device manufacturer/distributor was responsible for obtaining the proper licence.

 

Wait up, where does it do that?

The only reference I've seen to multiplayer game servers being impacted (note: being "banned" is entirely different in any case) is someone's wild speculation that it might happen in the future based on a very broad interpretation of something David said.



As for "they already made the new EULA and it wasn't right", that doesn't support the idea of them rushing it.



And, as others have asked... have you contacted them directly about your game in particular? The current license doesn't "ban" anything, all it does is say you need another license. And, I'll say it again, while this *does* represent a risk there's really nothing to complain about here (yet) until you have contacted them and found their answer or terms unsatisfactory. For all you know they'll pull a perfectly benign "Unity 4.x Server usage for Indie Game" license off a shelf and have you sorted within 24 hours.

 

There are many places you can buy kiosks, and install whatever any kiosk software you want. So unless you are actually packaging and selling kiosks with software installed, a special license isn't required. Developing software to install on kiosks doesn't meet the requirement of the embedded restriction.

Regardless, I really doubt that kiosks are what that section is about.

That is the same thing I was saying. If you knowingly develop for an embedded device without a licence, you could be liable. Though, developing for kiosks dosen't fit the requirements of that section.

 

Actually it's installed as in:

...installed on more than 50 electronic devices...

There's absolutely no way I'm going to try and create software on the assumption that a judge will rule that as meaning 'before distribution' rather than 'a count of 50'.

Again, that's a very weak read IMO. If my device 'primarily' is used to run one UT powered app then it falls foul of the EULA. Just because a device has more functionality available doesn't necessitate that that functionality is used or is 'primary'.

Couldn't it? What happens if your definition of embedded is wrong, and by that misunderstanding you fall foul? What happens if you forget to put a properly worded clause into your EULA - even for a simple demo game/app?

At the end of the day, the truth is it is irrelevant if your reading or my reading is right or not - because there's confusion regardless and that's not acceptable.

 

It says you can not broadcast content that is primarily executed on a server. We have a Unity dev saying he doesn't think it's intended to stop servers in general, and that he thinks it's only there to ban sales on OnLive, but no actual answer from the sales team other than "contact them".

To me, it does. They already did "take their time and do it correctly", this wasn't some kind of first draft that we're testing; it's THE license. You're obviously not impacted, so I'm sure for you it's fine to tell everyone else to ignore the EULA and wait forever. If you were impacted, I doubt you'd be trying to silence everyone with questions and force everyone to work under the current license for an unknown amount of time.

Yes, haven't got a response yet (but it was only recently so I'm not concerned particularly) BUT regardless of whether or not they give me my own personal license, I don't WANT everyone needing to get their own separate EULA for every project they make because that makes Unity unstable. I want a regular, blanket EULA like most software has. I really don't like the idea of getting my own personalized EULA because it makes me think I will have to hire a lawyer to go over it all since everyone here will have a different license.

That's the same thing. You're not allowed to do anything against the EULA unless they give you a different one, and there's nothing saying whether they will or how much they will charge for a personalized license. In my experience though, any time a company "hides" a license on a page full of prices and says to contact them directly, it's because the price is so high that it would be bad press to put it on the pricing page.

If there was a benign server license already (and from the responses so far from Unity I'm almost positive there is not; they said themselves already that "they don't even think that license (for streaming) exists yet"), then they should put that license up publicly and have a price listed for it. Again, I don't want a bunch of secret separate licenses for everyone using Unity; that makes it unstable and hard to work with different teams or contracts.

 

False. Nowhere does it say that it only applies to "packaging and selling kiosks". There's no mention of packaging. No mention of selling. All it says is you can't indirectly distribute (read: someone else distributes) your app on more than 50 devices, if your app runs as the main interface/use (like a kiosk).

It was an example Unity themselves used. It would also apply to arcade games, which is more concerning for a game engine IMO.

Knowingly OR unknowingly, because you can't simply say "I didn't know" in most contract disputes. The main thing is that if you sell kiosk software, you need to clearly include a license saying that anyone buying it can't install it on kiosks if doing so would bring the grand total of all kiosks running that software to more than 50, which will pretty much stop anyone from buying your kiosk software. Replace "kiosk" with any other embedded device that's going to be used only to run your app.

 

Npsf hits the nail on the head here. All this armchair lawyer bickering doesn't really matter. The only lawyer bickering that would matter is the lawyers in court if you get sued, and the best way to avoid getting sued is to have a clear license. Letting a sloppy license stand just because you have faith that the other person isn't going to take advantage of it is almost always a bad idea. If we could all just rely on the good faith of companies we dealt with, there wouldn't be any need for things like EULA's. I know you guys want to defend Unity because our complaints hurt their feelings, but unless I can be assured that Unity will avoid suing me if I said it would hurt my feelings, I don't want to pretend that the EULA doesn't matter.

 

But that only works if you take it out of context. The full context is "distribute software installed on 50 devices...". It seems pretty clear to me that the sentence as whole states the distribution requires it to be installed to be valid. If it said "distribute software that can be installed..." or "software to be installed." I think if their intent was to limit software to be developed to generically run on device like that, then they worded it wrong.

That goes back to the "software installed". If someone is distributing a device, they have defined it's primary functionality in the product description. For example, kiosks primary functionality is to display information the client wants. At least at the point of distribution. So if I buy a kiosk to show a map of an amusement park, and you buy the same model kiosk to run a unity game, clearly the primary functionality is neither of those things, but the ability to display both. The EULA specifies primary functionality with distribution. If were selling kiosks that had unity games installed, and your description supported that, then I think you would need a license.

Nope, not really. Primarily because a simple app/game isn't going to be the primary function/user interface for hardware. But more to the point, you are allowed to develop and share things created in Unity. Say you create an app or game and post it on your website or a forum or what ever for people to use. For that to actually get installed on a device, someone would have had to download it/build/install on those devices. The person/company that is actually doing that would needs to be licensed. You weren't even indirectly involved, anymore than the the person who created some animated model used in that that was bought from the asset store. If you were hired/contracted to build such an app, then the responsibility would fall somewhere between you and client depending on the contract.

You are absolutely correct, we are just sharing are own interpretations. If anyone is actually planning on building software for an embedded device, or deciding whether or not to purchase U4 based on that need, they should contact UT. I don't have any plans to do so in the near future, and wouldn't use unity anyway, so it doesn't apply to me. Though I am curious.

 

Nope, the streaming restriction as is could be considered to ban authoritative servers. I don't think it was the intention at all, but as is that's something that needs to be clarified.

That's a separate issue from concerns that UT may in future restrict all licensed content from running on servers as a logical next step from the current restrictions.

 

Maybe then they should remove "indirectly" thing? If developer have no way of knowing that his software will be used as "primary interface", for example s/he is developing a thing Unity was made for, a GAME, and can't possibly imagine that someone will run it on homemade arcade machine (you can't rule it at all, but c'mon - who would do that if arcade would be put out in public w/out acquiring license?), let alone 50 of them.

Perhaps exception from "indirectly" thing regarding actual games - that would be sufficient IMO.

 

If your software is used without your knowledge, then you didn't agree to a contract.

Where?

 

Just because you have no specific knowledge, doesn't mean you didn't agree to it.

 

I don't think they would; the "indirectly" thing is common in licenses like this, mostly because otherwise it's too easy for you to purposefully sell embedded software and then say "I didn't know they were actually installing it on something". The main thing it forces you to do is to carry their license restrictions over into your own license, and then you don't need to stress out about it.

You don't actually need to worry much if you put it in your license that they can't do something and someone legitimately does it behind your back. What most people are suggesting here though is trying to use that as a loophole; like selling kiosk software but then claiming it wasn't you who indirectly put it on the kiosk, or selling arcade games to arcades but claiming you didn't know it would be put onto an arcade box.

 

Yea, that is the big one for me. I totally agree that probably wasn't the intent, but could be read that way. For a game where physics may play a very critical role, an authoritative server may have to run a full simulation.

 

Example?

 

I make a game, I think it's a bit of fun and release it.

Some teacher somewhere pays it, finds it educational, and installs it on every computer in a classroom, and gets kids to play it.

Now, you just released a game, but now it's an educational tool. You have no specific knowledge of the education value - but your selling agreement allowed this to occur.

In the same way UT provides/d a tool with a royalty free license. They didn't know that their customers were using it in embedded systems or streaming etc. - but the EULA agreed to let us do these things because the license was permissive.

 

No; that's the whole point of "indirectly". It's legalese for "You have to copy/paste this into your own EULA". You can't just "forget" to tell OnLive that your game isn't allowed to be distributed on OnLive when they buy it from you, and then claim that they sold it without your knowledge. It's your responsibility to copy the limitations on use into your own license.

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/16...Restrictions?p=1106713&viewfull=1#post1106713

"and since we absolutely don't want to limit developers from bild information kiosks for exhibitions, VJing apps, and similar, we added a 50 device limit before you have to worry about talking to us."

This implies that those apps ARE embedded devices but that it shouldn't matter since you usually won't have more than 50 of them. In other words, they added the "50 devices" part specifically because they know it otherwise blocks kiosks, VJing apps, and similar.

 

Sure it's the same thing, in the same way that cars are banned in most countries by requiring that you need a license in order to drive one.

 

I don't make hardware, but my potential clients do. We are devoting time and resources for Unity, and if we have to use different engines for different projects, then I would use an engine without these restrictions.

And the main question is, why does Unity needs a separate license for this for 4.0 whereas it was allowed in 3.5, when this does not add more work for Unity.

 

Exactly. Why 50 devices limit? Does Unity have additional work to do in U4 vs U3.5 if I deploy number 51?

 

When? Today? Considering how concerned you are about a lack of a public answer solving everyone's problems, I can't imagine you'd be any less worried about getting a personal response to an individual and most likely much easier to solve problem in the same time.

Having per-developer and potentially custom licenses doesn't seem to have made other game engines (including Unreal) unstable, by the way. And if you also consider that the effected use cases here are relatively niche and thus won't impact the vast majority of users for the foreseeable future, I don't think it's really an issue. Also consider that Unity want that same stability every bit as much as you do, and probably a whole lot more - to you it's a tool, to them it's jobs and careers and livelihoods.

 

That is the point. You entering into a contract with OnLive, and it is your responsibility to ensure you are within the scope of the Unity's EULA. Onlive isn't/can't distribute your game without your knowledge or consent. None of that happens without your knowledge.

I stand corrected.

 

Did those engines make their names by issuing hundreds of thousands/millions of permissive royalty free licenses?

That's an unknown, it could affect a substantial portion or even majority in a very short amount of time depending on how the EULA is handled and how technology moves. The idea that this is a niche issue is a short-sighted one that is based on some untenable predictions.

 

Caring about how things affect other people IS pretty strange in this day and age, yet nevertheless, here I am.

Because most indies are covered by Unreal's blanket license. My problem is that this new EULA potentially fractures everyone. You are saying that it's fine if people can't create games with servers because all of those people can just get individualized licenses and their own lawyers, but that impacts a ton of indies, far more than the number of indies who need personlized Unreal licenses.

"Executes mostly on the server" is NOT niche, and I do think it will affect a lot of people. If it only means "You can't sell on OnLive" then that's fine, but in its current state it most definitely does NOT mean that, and that's my concern. Even still, "You can't sell on OnLive" is also something that will fracture indies if OnLive or similar services start to become more popular... and I don't think it's clear at all (since there was no announcment) that Unity is purposefully trying to stop indies from selling on OnLive.

Well, then they're not served well by people like you demanding that everyone stop asking questions, ignore the actual EULA, and instead go with your gut feeling on what you think they probably meant. That's not stability.

 

Notice the 'or'. There's no reason to suggest that OnLive [or another streaming platform] couldn't be installing your games/apps etc on their servers this very second without your knowledge - yet still be doing it with your consent. It depends entirely on how your distribution is handled - e.g. what is your EULA?

 

Ok, but that line of discussion was related to "indirectly", and being potentially responsible for use.

Though, you could sue that teacher for installing multiple copies if they didn't pay for them.

 

Well, if you were prohibited from your app being used in an education setting, but didn't put that in any EULA then you have given that person permission that you didn't have the right to give.

Oh, and I purposefully left out the specifics of the distribution - whether the app was free or the teacher bought multiple licenses, or the your EULA gave him the ability to install multiples [maybe a LAN clause] etc.

 

Hence "foreseeable". And not wanting to make their own untenable predictions is quite possibly why Unity didn't want to include these things directly in the existing license.

 

Eh, yes and no. People can do whatever they want without your knowledge or consent, and you can't do anything at all to them unless you specifically got them to agree to a contract saying they wouldn't do that or it violates some automatic law like copyright. The bottom line is that there is no "loophole" letting you break this part of the EULA by having a middle-man who you claim acted without your knowledge. That's what I was responding to. The only concern for people who aren't trying to abuse a loophole is that now we all have to make sure we copy/paste these new clauses into our own EULA's.

 

Where did I ever say anything along those lines? To the contrary, I seem to remember encouraging on many occasions that people contact Unity to sort this stuff out, and to foster positive relationships with their suppliers and/or vendors - including Unity. I also seem to remember asking questions that I'd like them to clarify myself, as requested by staff.

So it was today, then?

The reason I ask is that, in the past, Unity have always been pretty quick when we've had questions. And the negative impact of what is written in the EULA is directly related to how and how quickly they respond. Of course if you never contact them then they won't have anything to respond to, which can only lead towards a worst-case outcome on both sides of the coin.

 

You seem to forget that we're here contacting Unity, asking them to sort it out and fostering positive relationships. Theres no requisite that everything be done behind closed doors to have validity.

 

Most of what's going on here is far from fostering a positive relationship, and the contacting bit was done ages ago and achieved success as soon as Unity staff members asked for examples where things needed to be cleared up. Much of what's come since has just made that communication needlessly noisy.

And yes, publicly asking them to sort it out is a good thing, but at the same time it's not the fastest way to get a solution for individual projects that are in production or conception stages at the moment. It'll probably take a while to get the general case sorted out, and if there's less delay by contacting them directly then it's a win-win.

 

Both of these restrictions, besides the gambling restriction are very vague, I guess some example scenarios are needed.

 

If you implicitly allow streaming and distribution via a EULA, then you are, with full knowledge, implicitly violating the your EULA with U4. If you don't have a EULA or don't implicitly agree to all the things that would be required to publish on OnLive, they cannot legally do it. In reality, that simply wouldn't happen, a company like that would be in contact with the developer, because there are most certainly points that would have to be agreed on that wouldn't be in a EULA, and no company in their right mind would assume it would be ok, they would contact the publisher.

 

This IS contacting them, and they have said in this very thread that they are working on it and will respond, and said they WANT us to continue to post here with questions. They're not gaining anything by you trying to annoy people into going away and leaving them alone. I did contact them privately but I'm ALSO contacting them publicly here, because, as you continue to fail to grasp, I don't want a solution that only works for me; I want to see a change in the public license. If Unity wrote me up a special personal license saying they'd deliver pie to my house every day that would be great, but I'd still have an issue with the public EULA. I still want to see it changed.

I'm also not going to post any details of private correspondence with them, which you seem to be trying to goad me and others into doing, and I suggest no one else does either. Not only is it extremely poor business, but it also does nothing to solve the problem that most of us are concerned with: the standard EULA, not whether we can make side deals. I know Unity are nice people; that's really not my concern.

 

That isn't really a valid scenario because the reverse is actual reality. Getting software into a (public) education system can be incredibly difficult, restrictions and requirements are very complex. It simply wouldn't be done due to government software requirements.

 

What exactly are your posts contributing then? They seem to exist solely to add noise and foster a negative relationship. Defending a company by being snarky and dismissive of everyone who complains does nothing but troll the thread and generate more anger. If your goal is to make any of the people you've dismissed feel happier or positive about this situation, you're doing a pretty terrible job.

One thing I will agree with you on; that our conversation is only fostering a negative image for Unity, so I will stop replying.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way, it wasn't my intention. In particular I can assure you I'm not trying to goad anyone into anything.

 

And it can be incredibly easy - been there done that. Remembering that Unity is used World Wide - so what you know in your own local area, state, country or even continent isn't necessarily the be and end all.

 

Legally no, they can't. They need your consent. You don't need to get anyone to agree to not do something they don't have the right to do in the first place.

With all the issues discussed here, you have to implicitly allow for, or be involved in the process to be in violation of the U4 EULA.

Whether gambling, streaming or embedded, if another party uses it without your consent, you cannot be held accountable. Because in all those cases, the law requires they have your implicit permission to distribute that product. You don't need to specify it in a EULA, you don't even need to have a EULA. If you implicitly grant distribution rights in an EULA, then you would want to add those sections.

 

In Austraila? Because in the US, (my only experience is with CA, OR and WA) it is a complete nightmare.