Hacker News Reader

Comment by bigstrat2003 | Hacker News Reader

bigstrat2003

> This retroactive stuff is insane and I cannot figure out how a company can make that type of move if they care about their users.

I can't even understand how it can possibly be legal. How on earth is it even possible to say "your game which was released before we updated this license is subject to the updated version"? IANAL but that sure seems like something which would require both parties to agree to the updated terms for them to be binding.

View on HN

The old Terms of Service have the usual clause that says that the company can change the terms at any time. However, the terms do provide that if you don't update Unity then you can continue to use the old terms. Unity obviously doesn't point that out in the blog or FAQ.

> Unity may update these Unity Software Additional Terms at any time for any reason and without notice (the “Updated Terms”) and those Updated Terms will apply to the most recent current-year version of the Unity Software, provided that, if the Updated Terms adversely impact your rights, you may elect to continue to use any current-year versions of the Unity Software (e.g., 2018.x and 2018.y and any Long Term Supported (LTS) versions for that current-year release) according to the terms that applied just prior to the Updated Terms (the “Prior Terms”). The Updated Terms will then not apply to your use of those current-year versions unless and until you update to a subsequent year version of the Unity Software (e.g. from 2019.4 to 2020.1). If material modifications are made to these Terms, Unity will endeavor to notify you of the modification. If a modification is required to comply with applicable law, the modification will apply notwithstanding this section. Except as explicitly set forth in this paragraph, your use of any new version or release of the Unity Software will be subject to the Updated Terms applicable to that release or version. You understand that it is your responsibility to maintain complete records establishing your entitlement to Prior Terms.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220716084623/https://github.co...

Worth noting that this clause was removed early this year, whats interesting is you can see it under previous terms on the unity site, which indicate it was replace on October 13, 2022, linking to the new terms (that don't have this clause), implying that this clause was removed nearly a year ago...

However, the clause was still in the October 2022 terms, and was still there in March 2023 [2], and was actually removed in April this year...

It's likely just an oversight, but it does feel pretty dishonest in the face of removing the github repo, its the difference between "that clause has been gone for a year" and "that clause was removed less than 6 months ago"

[1] https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service/software-legacy

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20230303043022/https://unity.com...

Well, it depends on how you think of the license. Is it like you buy a license for a specific release or do you subscribe to a license to the software across all releases?

I don’t know. I can see how it would be ridiculous if Amazon said “oh, by the way, starting next year you have to pay a cent every time you finish any of the books you bought on your kindle”

But if Netflix went “starting next year, there’s a surcharge of 1 cent per episode you watch” nobody would go “surely it can only count for episodes released from next year!

Which raises an interesting question to me: what if a developer wants out of the Unity contract? Does that mean they have to somehow break games consumers already purchased so as not to be liable to install fees?

Reminder that Amazon did something like that once: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/techn...

I think whether something can only run on the company's service is the differentiating factor. So if Unity games all required to be played on unity3d.com or if they all required online communication with unity3d servers to function at all then people would accept that the contract for finished games could change anytime.

waves in the general direction of the housing market, politicians being "lobbied" (bought) by companies, rampant destruction of the environment by industry; but paper straws for us, the numerous tax havens and the lack of any reform from Panama papers, government "contractors" padding their purses with tax money (see projects like crossrail), privately owned utilities completely mismanaged and corrupt (see Thameswater)

We live in a dystopia lmao. Of course stuff like this is possible. Unity took one leap forward and pissed everyone off, they'll "fix" it by taking one or two steps back and then everyone will forget about it, just like we forget about everything else.

Maybe their argument was going to be the malicious interpretation that continued use of the engine represents consent to the updated terms. Thus maliciously expecting that anyone who doesn't agree should cease distribution and support of their game.

You can say whatever you want in a contract. If the other party thinks it is illegal they take you to court and the judge decides.

But it means that their legal teams say that it's legit already, so that's why most people assume that this is legal.

A lawyer friend of mine once told me that most of his job as a contract lawyer was basically a game to see if the other company's lawyers were paying attention and to take absolutely everything he could if they weren't.

But in that case there is a meeting of the minds where one party is supposed to read the terms and object to any that are unreasonable.

It's very different from the situation where one party retroactively changes conditions.

This is an extremely bad way to view a contract.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com