6 ms·

Much as I love open source and the Godot engine, this seems more like a wake-up call on the importance of corporations not being able to unilaterally, retroacti

by makomk 3y ago

Much as I love open source and the Godot engine, this seems more like a wake-up call on the importance of corporations not being able to unilaterally, retroactively change contracts in ways that impose new charges and violate existing contractual commitments that others have relied on. If they can do that then open source doesn't offer much real protection.

TMM2K 3y ago
Open source is that protection. There's no way for an open source project to change their terms that drastically. The whole hasicorp disaster is a prime example of that. Terraform is forked and continues on like normal, users are not impacted. For programming platforms (like game engines) this is even MORE of an advantage, as with something like terraform you could conceivably rewrite your stuff in a matter of weeks if you have reasonable testing. For a game that is not possible. Nobody can take away your rights under the MIT license, there's no legal mechanism to do that. You are protected, fully, from shit like this.
- johncolanduoni 3y ago
  Nobody can take away your rights if the contract you sign with the engine developer doesn't allow it, as people have been pointing out is the case for other engines. IIRC Unreal's contract gives you access to a particular version of the engine in perpetuity, with source and the permission to make your own additions/changes to that source. It doesn't guarantee updates, but neither does the MIT license.
  - mattdesl 3y ago
    Apparently this is exactly what is happening with Unity[1], where the TOS previously said that you can continue using an old version, but now they are walking this back and trying to apply fees retroactively. Whether this is legal or not might be debatable, but unless users mount a legal challenge they are probably stuck paying or finding another engine. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37499731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37499731
    - dmvdoug 3y ago
      Honestly, the first thing I thought when I heard the story was “sounds like a lawsuit.”
- ahoka 3y ago
  “There's no way for an open source project to change their terms that drastically.” Like going from GPLv2 to GPLv3 or straight to AGPL, so now you are stuck with an old version forever? Yeah, that would never happen!
  - Takennickname 3y ago
    You're not stuck with an old version forever, that's very hyperbolic and you purposefully ignored OP's example of Hashicorp and Terraform and instead responded with sarcasm.
  - pxc 3y ago
    That's only a problem for you if you yourself have a business model that depends on curtailing the freedom of your users. Playing the victim when a license prevents you from victimizing your own customers and users in the way that has happened in this incident is pretty rich.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    Contrast "you are stuck with an old version forever" with "you can't use the program at all anymore, not even old versions of it".
- Spivak 3y ago
  > Terraform is forked and continues on like normal, users are not impacted. That's a massive overstatement of the current state of OpenTF right now. Plus they're still dependent on Hashicorp's hosting which also changed their license terms in response to the project. You're right that because it's OSS you can do this kind of thing where it wouldn't be possible at all in a proprietary system but "just fork" requires a community to organize around it. Without a bunch of backing orgs this wouldn't have happened.
simion314 3y ago
The problem is today everything has ToS, you get a ToS update in the email and if you do not like it you have to stop using the product, and lot of software this days require an account , and has online features or requirements. I got burned by Steam, I have a super old laptop with some old games on it, Half Life, so one day I got the laptop out, Steam updates and f** itself, the old system is no longer supported but they had to f** things up s the games won't work. I agree, open source is not required, but we need to own our software not rent it.
- Woodi 3y ago
  > I agree, open source is not required, but we need to own our software not rent it. That's just a start but also require freezing your OS and have lots of spare hardware or have rights to emulate it :) And same with data - buyed songs for example :) Big industry already is killing media you can own - cd, dvd, blueray depends on outdated cpu, pendrives decay before becoming usefull backup media... In the age of asholess open sources and resources are best. Let's bring more viral licenses then GPL !
isilofi 3y ago
It is a wakeup-call also to do due dilligence and risk management when entering contracts. And yes, clicking "agreed" in the installer is very often a contract that you should run by your legal advisors. Or at least think very hard about. _Some_ kinds of Open Source might help there, since _some_ open source licenses are very easy to comply with and very business-friendly. On the other hand, all the game studios now complaining would also howl and whine when forced to be GPL-compliant and release their source code. And even with business-friendly take-what-you-want-and-never-give-back Open Source licenses, there is always the risk that the project you are using does what Hashicorp did with Terraform and stuff: Change the license for all future releases to something you won't like, cutting you off from your necessary updates and fixes. Maybe there will be a community maintaining a fork, maybe there won't.
- TMM2K 3y ago
  Godot is MIT licensed though, there's very little we can do to screw our users if we wanted to, which we do not :)
  - nhinck 3y ago
    You could change the license for future versions and charge for said updates, for the market that godot targets that would be more a little screwing to them. How long would it take for someone to take over the project (if ever).
    - jehb 3y ago
      And it's at exactly this moment the community would fork the project and development of a free version would continue. This is not a real risk for a community-driven project, only for corporate-driven projects where a single entity owns copyright on the on all or close to all of the codebase.
      - isilofi 3y ago
        The important distinction isn't who owns copyright. It is rather that there needs to be a community opposed to the license change and able and willing to do the work. One could even imagine scenarios like an originally MIT-licensed software splitting into a commercial company offering commercial paid licenses, plus a community (or even the company itself) offering a GPL-licensed fork. Of course one could then still maintain an additional MIT-licensed fork, but if the rest of the community is happy with GPL and all the development just happens there, your MIT fork will "starve"...
nhinck 3y ago
They don't though, if any developer had the means to take it to court it is incredibly likely that Unity would lose. While TOS are rarely worth the toilet paper they could be printed on, I'm curious about whether arguments could be made about whether existing subscribers from 2019 could now sue for breach of contract and costs associated with (re)development.
- isaiahg 3y ago
  Do you have the money to fight it because I sure don’t
  - mcv 3y ago
    That's the big issue. This is going to hurt smaller developers more because they can't afford to fight it. The big question is: to what extent to Unity games need to be able to talk to Unity's servers? If they're looking at number of installs (and apparently that includes pirated copies even?), serve ads, and probably provide other services, that sounds like the games need a connection to the server. In which case they may be able to disable your game if you don't pay. And then even if you could sue them, the real damage is already done.
  - zulban 3y ago
    That's what class actions are for.
jcarrano 3y ago
Did they make a commitment in the first place? It is up to the developers using the engine to make due diligence and inspect the terms of the contracts and licenses of the software they use. I would feel very uneasy if my product was based on a framework, where the provider makes no commitment and reserves the right to change the licensing terms at any time.
- makomk 3y ago
  Unity made a specific committment in their terms that if those terms changed in a way that disavantaged existing developers, those developers could carry on using the existing annual release under the old terms, and also that they would notify developers of changes to their terms. They then sneakily removed that committment and almost immediately imposed this licensing fee for use of the runtime, when one of the specific advantages of Unity they promoted was not having any such fees, and retroactively applied this to new installks of all existing games. It was shameless and some company offering open source software could jsut as easily retroactively decide it wasn't open source at all.
  - jcarrano 3y ago
    Thanks for the info. I'm not into game dev and did not know that. That was a pretty nasty move and they should't be trusted anymore. The last part I do not agree: a license cannot be changed retroactively if there is no provision in the original license for doing so, and no open source license have that. Even if "revoking" licenses for all prior releases were allowed, it could only work if all copyright holders agreed, which is not practical for most projects.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Copyright laws are all completely out of balance and stupid. As a rule, corporations can not retroactively change contracts. If this one is legal (I wouldn't try to guess), it will be because of the EULA rules.
- bigfishrunning 3y ago
  I am absolutely sure that the EULA stated they reserve the right to make this sort of pricing change. Every EULA does.

by makomk 3y ago

TMM2K 3y ago

Open source is that protection. There's no way for an open source project to change their terms that drastically. The whole hasicorp disaster is a prime example of that. Terraform is forked and continues on like normal, users are not impacted. For programming platforms (like game engines) this is even MORE of an advantage, as with something like terraform you could conceivably rewrite your stuff in a matter of weeks if you have reasonable testing. For a game that is not possible. Nobody can take away your rights under the MIT license, there's no legal mechanism to do that. You are protected, fully, from shit like this.

johncolanduoni 3y ago
Nobody can take away your rights if the contract you sign with the engine developer doesn't allow it, as people have been pointing out is the case for other engines. IIRC Unreal's contract gives you access to a particular version of the engine in perpetuity, with source and the permission to make your own additions/changes to that source. It doesn't guarantee updates, but neither does the MIT license.
- mattdesl 3y ago
  Apparently this is exactly what is happening with Unity[1], where the TOS previously said that you can continue using an old version, but now they are walking this back and trying to apply fees retroactively. Whether this is legal or not might be debatable, but unless users mount a legal challenge they are probably stuck paying or finding another engine. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37499731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37499731
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    Honestly, the first thing I thought when I heard the story was “sounds like a lawsuit.”
ahoka 3y ago
“There's no way for an open source project to change their terms that drastically.” Like going from GPLv2 to GPLv3 or straight to AGPL, so now you are stuck with an old version forever? Yeah, that would never happen!
- Takennickname 3y ago
  You're not stuck with an old version forever, that's very hyperbolic and you purposefully ignored OP's example of Hashicorp and Terraform and instead responded with sarcasm.
- pxc 3y ago
  That's only a problem for you if you yourself have a business model that depends on curtailing the freedom of your users. Playing the victim when a license prevents you from victimizing your own customers and users in the way that has happened in this incident is pretty rich.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Contrast "you are stuck with an old version forever" with "you can't use the program at all anymore, not even old versions of it".
Spivak 3y ago
> Terraform is forked and continues on like normal, users are not impacted. That's a massive overstatement of the current state of OpenTF right now. Plus they're still dependent on Hashicorp's hosting which also changed their license terms in response to the project. You're right that because it's OSS you can do this kind of thing where it wouldn't be possible at all in a proprietary system but "just fork" requires a community to organize around it. Without a bunch of backing orgs this wouldn't have happened.

simion314 3y ago

The problem is today everything has ToS, you get a ToS update in the email and if you do not like it you have to stop using the product, and lot of software this days require an account , and has online features or requirements. I got burned by Steam, I have a super old laptop with some old games on it, Half Life, so one day I got the laptop out, Steam updates and f** itself, the old system is no longer supported but they had to f** things up s the games won't work. I agree, open source is not required, but we need to own our software not rent it.

Woodi 3y ago
> I agree, open source is not required, but we need to own our software not rent it. That's just a start but also require freezing your OS and have lots of spare hardware or have rights to emulate it :) And same with data - buyed songs for example :) Big industry already is killing media you can own - cd, dvd, blueray depends on outdated cpu, pendrives decay before becoming usefull backup media... In the age of asholess open sources and resources are best. Let's bring more viral licenses then GPL !

isilofi 3y ago

It is a wakeup-call also to do due dilligence and risk management when entering contracts. And yes, clicking "agreed" in the installer is very often a contract that you should run by your legal advisors. Or at least think very hard about. _Some_ kinds of Open Source might help there, since _some_ open source licenses are very easy to comply with and very business-friendly. On the other hand, all the game studios now complaining would also howl and whine when forced to be GPL-compliant and release their source code. And even with business-friendly take-what-you-want-and-never-give-back Open Source licenses, there is always the risk that the project you are using does what Hashicorp did with Terraform and stuff: Change the license for all future releases to something you won't like, cutting you off from your necessary updates and fixes. Maybe there will be a community maintaining a fork, maybe there won't.

TMM2K 3y ago
Godot is MIT licensed though, there's very little we can do to screw our users if we wanted to, which we do not :)
- nhinck 3y ago
  You could change the license for future versions and charge for said updates, for the market that godot targets that would be more a little screwing to them. How long would it take for someone to take over the project (if ever).
  - jehb 3y ago
    And it's at exactly this moment the community would fork the project and development of a free version would continue. This is not a real risk for a community-driven project, only for corporate-driven projects where a single entity owns copyright on the on all or close to all of the codebase.
    - isilofi 3y ago
      The important distinction isn't who owns copyright. It is rather that there needs to be a community opposed to the license change and able and willing to do the work. One could even imagine scenarios like an originally MIT-licensed software splitting into a commercial company offering commercial paid licenses, plus a community (or even the company itself) offering a GPL-licensed fork. Of course one could then still maintain an additional MIT-licensed fork, but if the rest of the community is happy with GPL and all the development just happens there, your MIT fork will "starve"...

nhinck 3y ago

They don't though, if any developer had the means to take it to court it is incredibly likely that Unity would lose. While TOS are rarely worth the toilet paper they could be printed on, I'm curious about whether arguments could be made about whether existing subscribers from 2019 could now sue for breach of contract and costs associated with (re)development.

isaiahg 3y ago
Do you have the money to fight it because I sure don’t
- mcv 3y ago
  That's the big issue. This is going to hurt smaller developers more because they can't afford to fight it. The big question is: to what extent to Unity games need to be able to talk to Unity's servers? If they're looking at number of installs (and apparently that includes pirated copies even?), serve ads, and probably provide other services, that sounds like the games need a connection to the server. In which case they may be able to disable your game if you don't pay. And then even if you could sue them, the real damage is already done.
- zulban 3y ago
  That's what class actions are for.

jcarrano 3y ago

Did they make a commitment in the first place? It is up to the developers using the engine to make due diligence and inspect the terms of the contracts and licenses of the software they use. I would feel very uneasy if my product was based on a framework, where the provider makes no commitment and reserves the right to change the licensing terms at any time.

makomk 3y ago
Unity made a specific committment in their terms that if those terms changed in a way that disavantaged existing developers, those developers could carry on using the existing annual release under the old terms, and also that they would notify developers of changes to their terms. They then sneakily removed that committment and almost immediately imposed this licensing fee for use of the runtime, when one of the specific advantages of Unity they promoted was not having any such fees, and retroactively applied this to new installks of all existing games. It was shameless and some company offering open source software could jsut as easily retroactively decide it wasn't open source at all.
- jcarrano 3y ago
  Thanks for the info. I'm not into game dev and did not know that. That was a pretty nasty move and they should't be trusted anymore. The last part I do not agree: a license cannot be changed retroactively if there is no provision in the original license for doing so, and no open source license have that. Even if "revoking" licenses for all prior releases were allowed, it could only work if all copyright holders agreed, which is not practical for most projects.

marcosdumay 3y ago

Copyright laws are all completely out of balance and stupid. As a rule, corporations can not retroactively change contracts. If this one is legal (I wouldn't try to guess), it will be because of the EULA rules.

bigfishrunning 3y ago
I am absolutely sure that the EULA stated they reserve the right to make this sort of pricing change. Every EULA does.