3 ms·

Because Unity's TOS, like many software agreements, stretch retroactively and proactively across versions. If you use Unity, you agree to Unity Technologies te

Because Unity's TOS, like many software agreements, stretch retroactively and proactively across versions. If you use Unity, you agree to Unity Technologies terms, and their discretion to change them, without notice. It's literally in the terms. It's not so much software as it is software as a service.

throwaway2048 8y ago
Its highly unlikely that retroactively changing an agreement like that is actually legal.
- ncallaway 8y ago
  The agreement that you agreed to previously included terms that stipulated that Unity specifically had the right to unilaterally revise the terms. If you don't agree with the new terms, you must immediately stop using the product.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  A lot of the instincts around one-sided or surprising contract terms come from consumer protection laws in some countries. Not only is that comparatively absent from the US legal climate, it often doesn't apply to business to business relationships (such as between Unity and game development companies) even where it is present for consumers.
ABCLAW 8y ago
The doctrine of illusory promise makes a lot of the 'we can change the license however we want' clauses very weak, as far as contractual robustness goes. There are other similar contractual doctrines that attempt to deal with similar issues, but the issue isn't that the release valves don't exist. It's that they're old, rusted and require a lot of force to turn. The illusory promise doctrine is very seldomly used which means there's a lot of uncertainty about whether or not it would even work. And that's if the dispute gets into the courts in the first place. Which courts it gets into is another big deal; some T&Cs put requirements that the choice of forum for disputes is a favourable one for them, or they force arbitration to be the primary dispute resolution mechanic. That said, the illusory promise doctrine CAN and HAS demolished these type of T&Cs in the past. Sometimes they even blow up other contractor favouring terms as they go (like the aforementioned choice of forum/arbitration clauses, etc.) But why are people still putting this language into their agreements? Well... Even if the court doesn't like that segment of the contract and they sever it, there are other ways for the contractor to indicate that the bargain they've arrived at shouldn't be disturbed - including pointing towards continued performance and a lack of notice from others, so even if you correctly note that the contract is busted, the court might say you tacitly agreed to the changed terms and they're read back in, anyways. Civilian systems have a different strategy for dealing with these types of contracts, calling them contracts of adhesion. They aren't the product of a negotiation, so they treat them will less lenience and deference. Common law countries often adopt this style of protection through Consumer protection laws or other similar vehicles where the rules of contract are changed to fix different types of contracts. Basically, it's very complicated - this is just my top-of-mind snapshot on some of the issues, and that complexity creates cost, and that cost prevents oversight.
en4bz 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._Blockbuster,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._Blockbuster,_Inc.
dathinab 8y ago
Just because it's in the terms of service (or any contract) doesn't mean it's valid and legally binding. I'm not a lawyer but I would be surprised if a term which allows arbitrary retroactive changes of contacts is legal (at last in Europe). Through that's just wrt the retroactive part.

throwaway2048 8y ago

Its highly unlikely that retroactively changing an agreement like that is actually legal.

ncallaway 8y ago
The agreement that you agreed to previously included terms that stipulated that Unity specifically had the right to unilaterally revise the terms. If you don't agree with the new terms, you must immediately stop using the product.
jkaplowitz 8y ago
A lot of the instincts around one-sided or surprising contract terms come from consumer protection laws in some countries. Not only is that comparatively absent from the US legal climate, it often doesn't apply to business to business relationships (such as between Unity and game development companies) even where it is present for consumers.

ABCLAW 8y ago

The doctrine of illusory promise makes a lot of the 'we can change the license however we want' clauses very weak, as far as contractual robustness goes. There are other similar contractual doctrines that attempt to deal with similar issues, but the issue isn't that the release valves don't exist. It's that they're old, rusted and require a lot of force to turn. The illusory promise doctrine is very seldomly used which means there's a lot of uncertainty about whether or not it would even work. And that's if the dispute gets into the courts in the first place. Which courts it gets into is another big deal; some T&Cs put requirements that the choice of forum for disputes is a favourable one for them, or they force arbitration to be the primary dispute resolution mechanic. That said, the illusory promise doctrine CAN and HAS demolished these type of T&Cs in the past. Sometimes they even blow up other contractor favouring terms as they go (like the aforementioned choice of forum/arbitration clauses, etc.) But why are people still putting this language into their agreements? Well... Even if the court doesn't like that segment of the contract and they sever it, there are other ways for the contractor to indicate that the bargain they've arrived at shouldn't be disturbed - including pointing towards continued performance and a lack of notice from others, so even if you correctly note that the contract is busted, the court might say you tacitly agreed to the changed terms and they're read back in, anyways. Civilian systems have a different strategy for dealing with these types of contracts, calling them contracts of adhesion. They aren't the product of a negotiation, so they treat them will less lenience and deference. Common law countries often adopt this style of protection through Consumer protection laws or other similar vehicles where the rules of contract are changed to fix different types of contracts. Basically, it's very complicated - this is just my top-of-mind snapshot on some of the issues, and that complexity creates cost, and that cost prevents oversight.

en4bz 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._Blockbuster,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._Blockbuster,_Inc.

dathinab 8y ago

Just because it's in the terms of service (or any contract) doesn't mean it's valid and legally binding. I'm not a lawyer but I would be surprised if a term which allows arbitrary retroactive changes of contacts is legal (at last in Europe). Through that's just wrt the retroactive part.