koobas.hobune.stream
Licensing -- using free assets
I know this has been asked many times, but I haven't read any answer that (in my mind) is clear enough. I got this from the Asset Store Provider Agreement (http://unity3d.com/legal/as_provider):
6.5
Provider agrees that, pursuant to the EULA, it will grant to the Customer who acquires an Asset submitted by the Provider, a non-exclusive, worldwide, license in any medium now known or hereinafter invented to: (a) reproduce, post, modify, promote, license, sell, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform, or transmit the Asset for promotional and commercial purposes; (b) use any trademarks, service marks or trade names incorporated in the Asset; and (c) use the name and likeness of any individuals represented in the Asset.
Doesn't this state in plain text that you can use assets from the Asset Store, no matter what the 3rd-party provider states about licensing in the asset description? The word "acquires" counts for both purchasing assets and just downloading free ones, right?
Don't get me wrong -- I'll give credit where credit is due -- but I would worry a great deal less if that quoted paragraph states what I think it states.
Yes, that's right - the whole purpose of the asset store is to provide assets that customers can use in their games. There has never been a requirement to "give credit" to an asset author.
Thanks for the reply and for easing my nerves. It's just that the usual reply to this question is something like "You should check for any licensing terms the provider gives"
Because you should! :) The default EULA doesn't require attribution, but some assets apply additional terms. Anything licensed under the $$anonymous$$IT or BSD licenses, for example, would require an author credit and copyright notice.
@rutter is correct.
From section 1.2 "Certain Assets may be governed by a Provider end user license agreement."
And in 4.1 "Some components of Assets (whether developed by Unity or third parties) may also be governed by applicable open source software licenses. In the event of a conflict between the Terms, the applicable EULA and any such licenses, the open source software licenses shall prevail with respect to those components."
This theme is repeated in several places, including 2.7 of the standard EULA. There is nothing restricting an asset owner from requiring author credit and copyright notices under open source software licences.
Thanks. It just seems that these points are in conflict with the one I quoted above (except for the point that says open source licenses shall prevail over EULA)
