What a bunch of maroons. 99.9% chance someone else mirrored that git repo.
EDIT: And this is yet another reason everyone, everywhere, should immediately mirror any git repo for a project they are even remotely interested in.
github giveth, and github can (and does) taketh away. Say NO to centralized source management platforms – exactly the antithesis of what git was designed for in the first place!
Say no to centralized platforms altogether. I don’t want to be that person, but things like these are exactly why open-source is (and should be) superior. It’s unfortunate that OSS has had so little traction in the end-user side of things
That’s changing, imo. For years, closed source software built by companies was just superior in I’d say 80% of cases (Image editing, DAWs, 3D graphics (remember, blender may be getting up their in age, but it only recently hit parity with other major softwares)
I feel like now I’m using more open source software than not, not out of a personal belief, but because it’s actually better now than some of the closed source alternatives (price is not an issue with me, I’m gonna pirate whatever I want to use anyway)
I feel like it’s hitting a wider audience, too, nowadays.
True, maybe, but in this case entirely pointless. If Unity didn’t host their repo on git, they would’ve hosted it on their own solution. They would’ve been able to delete the repo just the same. Furthermore, if they hosted the solution on their own, it would’ve made it harder for others to mirror the repo. At least harder as git makes it.
Users are bound by the version of the terms they agree with when they start using the product. There may be a term that says ongoing usage when the terms change constitutes acceptance of a change.
Unity are trying to say they can make the change retroactively, but the 2022 (and prior) terms apparently included a clause saying that if future changes were detrimental to the user they could stay on old versions of the software and remain bound by the old terms. That’s one angle Devs could use to tell them to get fucked There may be others.
My question is how much support does Unity provide or need to provide to the old versions, or I guess any version. Will they still be usable a few years down the road?
Mirror a git repo? Do you understand how git works? You clone the repo, and it’s effectively mirrored already, especially for something that doesn’t change much.
If you want the commits updated, then put git pull in a daily cronjob. Boom! Mirror.
True, every git pull is a ‘mirror’. Bad phrasing on my part. I was thinking more of when I set up my local gogs instance to mirror an outside/upstream git (such as from github), which really is just their term for pulling again automatically every time upstream changes.
If you have any sticking points, let me know, or post in the most popular Godot community and myself and other experienced peers will be more than happy to help!
Awesome thanks! I have some experience with Unity so I expect I should be able to pick up the basics fairly quickly. I’m currently slogging my way through a 10 hour intro to v4 on Youtube.
Pretty excited to start out with a new and open engine. Is there any way to extract my paid-for assets from Unity and use them in Godot?
Hmm, that isn’t something I have personally encountered. This tool looks promising even if it isn’t under development anymore, but it might be worth a shot.
Corporations might have an iron grip over basically everything in our life, reducing our choices to a minimum, out of necessity, but the fact that they think we’re stupid too, is actually astounding
Are they just hoping that literally no publisher will legally challenge these terms? You can’t just change the terms retroactively without consent and start charging people whatever you want. They’ll lose the instant someone takes them to court over it
Especially when there’s a lot of high profile clients who’s business literally relies on them. They will absolutely have a ton of lawsuits coming towards them. Good, fuck them for thinking they could, or should, ever do this.
I’m sure if this actually pushes through they’ll change the terms for those clients just to keep them happy (and paying what they do pay, which likely dwarfs all the smaller players). And they sure as shit won’t fight for the smaller creators when they get theirs.
My question is what sort of “support” does Unity provide to these legacy engines. If the old versions are unsupported, does that mean they will be hard or impossible to use, or does it simply mean they don’t get feature updates?
You can’t just change the terms retroactively without consent and start charging people whatever
They can, if you don’t like it you quit using their product that is the alternative they offer if you don’t like the new license. If you want to continue to using it you have to accept and pay. It is not illegal, they can change the conditions anytime, the initial conditions 100% said that already as most terms have.
Not saying it isn’t terrible tough to be clear.
EDIT: They hated Jesus downvoted the user because he told them the truth.
I dont know if thats true. however, somtimes for whatever reason it goes out of your control and you cant revoke access to the game binarys (foss, public domain, pirated, etc…). Unity still wants someone to pay.
You’re right that a lot of Terms of Service documents and similar agreement documents have language that reserves the right to modify those terms.
At the same time just because something is in the terms doesn’t mean it can stand the test of adjudication and terms as well as changes are often challenged in court with success.
Unity is in a particular tricky situation because the clause that governed modifications in their last ToS explicitly gives the user the option to pass on modifications that adversely affects them and stick with the old terms:
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.
I agree that it seems like a problematic part. That said… even if devs are allowed to stay using that version, for a lot of devs is not practical, so the end result is basically the same, they cannot afford to stay on the old version and would need to pay to continue using it.
Except for old games not being updated or similar that they don’t need updates to the tools/engine.
I pose you this, I open a book store. I say my terms of service is say, all non racist books are allowed to sit on the shelves. I then later say, “I now own the copywrite and that physical copy of any book placed on my shelves. The new ones, the existing ones, and the future ones.” You’d be scrambling to get my books back before I pretend a contract you never agreed to is on effect and illegally steal them.
It’s a book store you wouldn’t own the copyright that makes no sense. Plus wtf is on with the non racist part at the beginning what has that to do with anything in the rest of the text.
And in any case yeah that would illegal because you don’t own the copyright neither those books. You own the book store and the shelves you could decide one day to charge them another fee if they want their book in your store and use your shelves, that would be an equivalent. And yeah any existing ones, and future ones would require the fee, of course, it is your fucking book store, maybe people won’t like it and look for s different store to put their books but that’s it.
A different thing is if you have a contract with the book store saying x year you will never have a fee. Or similar. Yeah that would be breach of contract and you could do something about it but this is not the case.
Their terms clearly indicate that they can be changed. If people didn’t try to or couldn’t get another terms/contract that specified otherwise is unfortunate but it is what it is.
Plus wtf is on with the non racist part at the beginning what has that to do with anything in the rest of the text.
It emulates the stuff they put into a TOS.
for s different store to put their books but that’s it
My original comment was trying to say the recource legally allowed is to be kicked out, however that isnt possable with how unity qants fees and by its nature intertwines with the copywrited work, witch is hard to impossable to un-publish.
You are right in terms of in-development and future games. But unity is also trying to enforce these terms on already released games. This could potentially bring a challenge to their subscription model, which essentially states you must continue to pay as long as your game is available. I don’t know much about the law, but I do know that there are legal limitations on how rented/subscribed products work. These limitations are to prevent straight up scams from stealing from you and making it technically legal with some fine print. Which isn’t too far off from what unity is doing now.
This is comparable to you renting a drill from someone to make a table. You agree to the terms that you must continue to pay a subscription as long as the table exists. Then unity drill co. decides you must also pay a fee every time someone sits at the table. Even though the table is already made, and you already had an agreement to pay for the drill you had previously used. Your only alternative is to destroy the table.
Just because the terms said they could modify the deal doesn’t mean they can force anything on you as if you had already agreed to it.
High interest rates. They built up the entire industry on the concept that they would have access to cheap capital forever. Now they don't, so they're squeezing their userbases -- who they've already been squeezing even with low interest rates -- from absurdly greedy to Saturday morning cartoon villain.
That, and probably investment in commercial real estate, which of course tanked because of WFH, which is also why so many companies are forcing people back into the office.
The wealth class were buying more money from the future. We’re now living in that future and all our money is disappearing into the pockets of the wealthy. Somehow this is an essential process in order for people to get anything done.
In an attempt to reboot the global economy, central banks slashed interest rates to almost zero, resulting in an era of cheap money.
This resulted in two things. First, it incentivized investors to fund promising (and, in many cases, not so promising) young tech companies. But it also allowed for the emergence of business models that, in any other circumstance, would be completely unviable.
According to EU regulations I think they’re obligated to inform users of any changes, so removing the repo doesn’t really do much to hinder people in tracking changes.
So unity too hired a few managers who want to make a quick buck, get a good bonus and then leave unity before it’s the burning husk that will be left once this is all said and done.
Yup. I think the “person” should be held accountable for their actions. The company would die, but the CEO would still get so much money out of this situation.
Add comment