5 ms·

> If they are willing to retroactively change the TOS once, why wouldn't they do it again once the smoke has settled? I haven't seen any evidence they did tha

by rhtgrg 3y ago

> If they are willing to retroactively change the TOS once, why wouldn't they do it again once the smoke has settled? I haven't seen any evidence they did that, it's mostly been FUD from Godot supporters. The initial communication was messy, but where are actual TOS changes that are being touted so loudly? https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service-legacy https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service-legacy

tombert 3y ago
I have no skin in this game, but I read this article: https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/09/14/unity-license-terms-github-repo-removed-retroactive-changes https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/09/14/unity-license-terms... ETA: You updated your post with the TOS, but from what I read the concern was that the new TOS said it applied to any new distribution of the Unity Runtime, without specifying versions and the like.
- rhtgrg 3y ago
  I have never seen a Unity TOS that specified versions as seen in the screenshot of the link you shared. Where did they get that screenshot from? They need to share their source. For all we know this is a change from 2020 (latest version referred to in their screenshot). In which case I think you will agree that is plenty of notice and most likely unrelated to be maliciously related to what's being announced now. They've even walked back the applicability to old versions as seen in GP.
  - tombert 3y ago
    Well Unity is being accused of some dishonesty with updating things and not disclosing it [1]. If that's true, then it's possible that it's been somewhat purged to make themselves look better. That said, that's a big "if", I'm just regurgitating what I read in news articles. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37615183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37615183
    - rhtgrg 3y ago
      Jan '22 TOS does not have such a clause either (from archive.org): https://web.archive.org/web/20220716041837/https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service https://web.archive.org/web/20220716041837/https://unity.com... At this point I'm pretty sure this is a dishonest attempt to dig up a 2020 change (if this clause even ever existed, which I've seen zero proof of) and correlate it to a 2023 announcement as if these things were done in tandem. Downvote me all you want. I don't think Godot et al will survive with these scummy tactics.
      - tombert 3y ago
        I seriously doubt this is some conspiracy from the Godot team, even if it's dishonest. I think people are probably drawing some correlations as a response to an announcement that they don't like, and then saying "Godot doesn't have this bullshit because it's open source". I don't think the Godot team is engaging in "scummy tactics" explicitly. ETA: Also, if you're going to edit your responses after you post them, I recommend using the `delay` feature in your HN settings, or adding an addendum section like I'm doing here, as it's a little unfair to people responding to you to make undisclosed changes so it looks like people responding to you aren't responding to all your points. I'm not saying you're being dishonest, I'm just saying that it feels a little unfair to responders.
        rhtgrg 3y ago
        Thanks, I'll use the delay feature. I accept that this has nothing to do with Godot. I did find the TOS in question, as expected, it's very old (from 2019): https://web.archive.org/web/20201111183311/https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService/blob/master/Unity%20Software%20Additional%20Terms.md https://web.archive.org/web/20201111183311/https://github.co... So people saying "who's to say they won't do this again," if four years isn't enough for you to catch up, I don't know what to tell you. Edit: They have also brought the repo back, which was likely another unrelated change: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService
      - danShumway 3y ago
  - wolrah 3y ago
    > I have never seen a Unity TOS that specified versions as seen in the screenshot of the link you shared. You mean this screenshot, right? https://gameworldobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/unity-tos-2019.jpg https://gameworldobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/uni... Right here: https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service/software-legacy https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service/software-legacy Scroll down about 80% of the page to section 8.
danShumway 3y ago
I commented similarly below, but see the March 2023 snapshot at https://web.archive.org/web/20230303043022/https://unity.com/legal/editor-terms-of-service/software https://web.archive.org/web/20230303043022/https://unity.com... Section 6 (Modifications to these Software Terms and Long-Term Supported versions). If you go to the next snapshot (https://web.archive.org/web/20230413210637/https://unity.com/legal/editor-terms-of-service/software https://web.archive.org/web/20230413210637/https://unity.com...), Section 6 will be missing and you'll see the following header at the top of the TOS: > Last updated: April 3, 2023 > What’s changed: We have posted an update to our Unity Editor Software Terms to, among other things, provide for our Industry Offering. We’ve also updated other sections, including those relating to data collection and modification of terms. Interestingly, their linked FAQ (https://web.archive.org/web/20230605071610/https://unity.com/legal/editor-terms-of-service/software/faq https://web.archive.org/web/20230605071610/https://unity.com...) provides no mention of the fact that they've removed the clause. I can't know what was going through Unity executives' heads when that FAQ was written, but they apparently didn't think it important to draw attention or specifically notify users about that revocation of their rights.
imtringued 3y ago
Why would "Godot supporters" care about what Unity is doing? It's not like they are on payroll and more users means more bug reports and feature requests for the maintainers without necessarily gaining more capacity to implement them. An open source project doesn't need an exodus of users from another project, it needs to get parity with its competitors and then quietly take over the market with little resistance.

by rhtgrg 3y ago

tombert 3y ago

I have no skin in this game, but I read this article: https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/09/14/unity-license-terms-github-repo-removed-retroactive-changes https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/09/14/unity-license-terms... ETA: You updated your post with the TOS, but from what I read the concern was that the new TOS said it applied to any new distribution of the Unity Runtime, without specifying versions and the like.

rhtgrg 3y ago
I have never seen a Unity TOS that specified versions as seen in the screenshot of the link you shared. Where did they get that screenshot from? They need to share their source. For all we know this is a change from 2020 (latest version referred to in their screenshot). In which case I think you will agree that is plenty of notice and most likely unrelated to be maliciously related to what's being announced now. They've even walked back the applicability to old versions as seen in GP.
- tombert 3y ago
  Well Unity is being accused of some dishonesty with updating things and not disclosing it [1]. If that's true, then it's possible that it's been somewhat purged to make themselves look better. That said, that's a big "if", I'm just regurgitating what I read in news articles. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37615183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37615183
  - rhtgrg 3y ago
    Jan '22 TOS does not have such a clause either (from archive.org): https://web.archive.org/web/20220716041837/https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service https://web.archive.org/web/20220716041837/https://unity.com... At this point I'm pretty sure this is a dishonest attempt to dig up a 2020 change (if this clause even ever existed, which I've seen zero proof of) and correlate it to a 2023 announcement as if these things were done in tandem. Downvote me all you want. I don't think Godot et al will survive with these scummy tactics.
    - tombert 3y ago
      I seriously doubt this is some conspiracy from the Godot team, even if it's dishonest. I think people are probably drawing some correlations as a response to an announcement that they don't like, and then saying "Godot doesn't have this bullshit because it's open source". I don't think the Godot team is engaging in "scummy tactics" explicitly. ETA: Also, if you're going to edit your responses after you post them, I recommend using the `delay` feature in your HN settings, or adding an addendum section like I'm doing here, as it's a little unfair to people responding to you to make undisclosed changes so it looks like people responding to you aren't responding to all your points. I'm not saying you're being dishonest, I'm just saying that it feels a little unfair to responders.
      - rhtgrg 3y ago
        Thanks, I'll use the delay feature. I accept that this has nothing to do with Godot. I did find the TOS in question, as expected, it's very old (from 2019): https://web.archive.org/web/20201111183311/https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService/blob/master/Unity%20Software%20Additional%20Terms.md https://web.archive.org/web/20201111183311/https://github.co... So people saying "who's to say they won't do this again," if four years isn't enough for you to catch up, I don't know what to tell you. Edit: They have also brought the repo back, which was likely another unrelated change: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService
    - danShumway 3y ago
- wolrah 3y ago
  > I have never seen a Unity TOS that specified versions as seen in the screenshot of the link you shared. You mean this screenshot, right? https://gameworldobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/unity-tos-2019.jpg https://gameworldobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/uni... Right here: https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service/software-legacy https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service/software-legacy Scroll down about 80% of the page to section 8.

danShumway 3y ago

I commented similarly below, but see the March 2023 snapshot at https://web.archive.org/web/20230303043022/https://unity.com/legal/editor-terms-of-service/software https://web.archive.org/web/20230303043022/https://unity.com... Section 6 (Modifications to these Software Terms and Long-Term Supported versions). If you go to the next snapshot (https://web.archive.org/web/20230413210637/https://unity.com/legal/editor-terms-of-service/software https://web.archive.org/web/20230413210637/https://unity.com...), Section 6 will be missing and you'll see the following header at the top of the TOS: > Last updated: April 3, 2023 > What’s changed: We have posted an update to our Unity Editor Software Terms to, among other things, provide for our Industry Offering. We’ve also updated other sections, including those relating to data collection and modification of terms. Interestingly, their linked FAQ (https://web.archive.org/web/20230605071610/https://unity.com/legal/editor-terms-of-service/software/faq https://web.archive.org/web/20230605071610/https://unity.com...) provides no mention of the fact that they've removed the clause. I can't know what was going through Unity executives' heads when that FAQ was written, but they apparently didn't think it important to draw attention or specifically notify users about that revocation of their rights.

imtringued 3y ago

Why would "Godot supporters" care about what Unity is doing? It's not like they are on payroll and more users means more bug reports and feature requests for the maintainers without necessarily gaining more capacity to implement them. An open source project doesn't need an exodus of users from another project, it needs to get parity with its competitors and then quietly take over the market with little resistance.