What does "work on that Asset on its behalf" entail.

Section 2.4 of the asset store EULA details:
`An END-USER may use an Asset under SECTIONS 2.2 and 2.3, and may have a third party, including any “work-made-for-hire” contractor or “freelancer” (“Contractor”), work on that Asset on its behalf. However, except for any “multi-entity” Assets under Section 2.3.1, any Contractor working on a project for an END-USER must have license(s) to its own to the Asset, and, conversely, to use an Asset under SECTIONS 2.2 and 2.3, a person must have its own license to the Asset, regardless of whether a Contractor working on a project for that person had its own license to that Asset. For example, a person who is a Contractor must have a seat license for an Extension Asset, and the person who is hirer of the Contractor must have a seat license for that Extension Asset.`

Where it's specified "any Contractor working on a project for an END-USER must have license(s) to its own to the Asset". Obviously is not meant to apply to projects where the asset is not used, so is it meant to be limited by "may have a third party (...) work on that Asset on its behalf" which is written in the previous sentence? In that case, what does "Work on that asset" actually mean?

Specifically for extension assets, let's say there's an extension asset that adds a hotkey that allows you to create an empty file named "example.txt" in your assets folder. If somebody uses this extension asset and creates the file, then deletes the entire extension asset before committing to git (only committing example.txt), would everyone working on the project be required to have a seat for the asset?

Similarly, if there's an extension asset that adds a toolbar dropdown to switch to a specific scene, and somebody uses it but has it ignored by git (not committed), would everyone working on the project be required to have a seat for the asset?

 

I think that‘s pretty clear.

If you own all the paid assets in a project and start sharing it with someone else to work on the project, be it using said assets directly or not, that someone else needs to have a license for each of the paid assets in the project, too.

That‘s how I understand it. It wouldn‘t make sense to not get extra licenses of the 3d assets because - for example - the extra programmer isn‘t using them. I‘ve heard this interpretation many times over, but it doesn‘t make sense (it only serves to satisfy the sense of guilt) since as soon as the programmer has the project loaded, she is using those assets, if only to allow her to open the project in the first place.

IANAL.

In your examples, you use the asset to create more assets. I would say as long as the asset-creating-asset is not shared with others those others don‘t need a license to it. However, said asset could possibly limit the use of created assets.

 

It's specifically extension assets that it's unclear for (hence the examples).

I'd like to know what unity's official stance on this is, since it's their default EULA. I obviously could ask a lawyer, but knowing their intention rather than a 3rd party's interpretation is always better.

 

I'm no lawyer either, but it seems pretty clear to me as well. The first sentence is just stating that you can have contractors working on a project where you've licensed 3rd party stuff. The second sentence is stating the licensing requirements of doing so. Those requirements are that anyone who has access to an asset must have a license for it.

So if I buy AssetX and use it in my project, and then I contract you to also work on my project in the Unity Editor where you would also have access to that asset, then you must also have a license for AssetX.

Similarly, if I contract you to work on my project and you decide to add AssetY so that I could access it, then I must either also buy a license for AssetY, or not let you add it.

In this case they're not giving anyone else access to it, so I don't believe they would need to get extra licenses. It's the asset that matters, rather than the overall project.

But I see where you're coming from in asking the question. Some of the wording in there isn't as clear as it could be.