Unity license agreement

I wonder if I can use Unity source code as a part of my plugin and than sell it on Unity Asset Store. For example, I want to create a color picker extension, but based on standard one. For the dial I need unity internal classes I can find on UnitySourceCode.

 

Unity doesn't allow use of their source code for anything at all except research. You cannot include it in any build, they did not release it for the code itself to be used.

 

But how could they check it?

 

by reading the forums So your quite save!

But seriously if its not allowed its not allowed.

 

"How would they check it". You do know that compiled code can go to a previous state.
Plus, there's a license with terms and conditions.
So if you want to have a lawsuit dropped on your lap...
Seriously though, how would you feel if i grabbed your plugin's code and made my own without making a deal with you first?
Would you be ok with it? You should right?

For what you want to do, just call and invoke the picker, don't use the source code.

 

You just shade red light on yourself
Reverse engineering is not something new.
Many production failed and end up in court, because of similar practices.
If you feel confident and event think obfuscation will protect you, go ahead.

 

Guys, i know, im not a stupid one. I asked the question, because i want to extend their engine, and it so strange for me, that thay provide an api for lots of tools but not for the color picker and color mutator. Even odd that, I've done a half of work and then explore theor algorithms. Their code looks so similar, in another hand I want to do the hight quality color palette plugin, isn't it good for Unity?

 

You can add things, but by licence, you can not share any part of Unity source code, if you don't have agreement.
No matter how humble would you like to be.

 

Thanks, for the replies)

 

I'd just write your own color picker that operates nearly identical while not duplicating the code. Since you can look at their code that shouldn't be very difficult to do.

 

Can't you simply inherit the class instead ?
I think that wouldn't be against the eula.

 

Its internal one, the only way is reflection i think, but you can't inherit it

 

Just the way i do it, but for me it seems like copy paste