How can i place a project free on GitHub if it also, for example contains a free camera controller from the asset store.
I want to showcase a game mechanic on github but i also need a basic free character/camera controller in the project from asset store and dont have a need to write a new one.
Can I just add a note stating the source of the free camera code?
EDIT:
The question was about a project containing classes not written by me and the legality of hosting those.
example if my project on GitHub contains:
MyGame.cs // this is me
FreeCameraFromAssetStore.cs // this ones not my work
Well its more a hypothetical question. How does everyone handle it.
If you build a demo and want to host it on GitHub you may just throw a basic script in to look around with the mouse. There are many free on asset store, why rewrite that it took 2 seconds and is offered free.
How do you properly host and credit that script. Asset store has no restrictions right maybe you just write a credit in and leave it at that?
I want to share my scripts but not look like I am taking credit for some random small free helper script in there.
There are many on Github too. Just pick one from there instead of the Asset Store. Just be careful to check that the repository has a license file specifying a compatible license. By default if a repository on Github doesn’t have one it is automatically copyrighted and cannot be used.
Be careful too that it isn’t licensed under the GPL as that license is incompatible with Unity due to the way that it forces the entire source code of the project to be GPL just by including some GPL code.
You can also add specific comment and links to the Camera Controller you are using in the project to the actual asset in the asset store. So if any other person views or uses the same Git Project. He will know that this specific controller is created by another person. In that way the person who created the asset will also get the introduction.
If your project includes paid assets made by other people, then you’re not allowed to release it as a PUBLIC project on github. Only as a private project that only you can access.
Even if the asset is FREE, then as long as it is released under standard asset store license, you’re still technically not allowed to redistribute it. You’ll have to look for things released under permissive licenses specifically - MIT, BSD, Apache, Public Domain, CC0, etc.
If your project does not contain such things, t hen it can be public.
Please note that unity project cannot be released under GPL or other viral licenses, because during compilation it will be linked with unity code, and you can’t make unity code GPL.
Ok thanks everyone. As neginfinity stated clearly I cannot upload something w a paid asset. I was hoping there was an easy answer for the free stuff but i guess not.
I have a few projects that I want to share publicly but there are various free textures, maybe some scripts, whatever that I picked up along the way.
So now I see that’s a problem for sharing the projects.
Even free mixamo characters, I want to share some ragdoll components I made but now by way of the example i am redistributing mixamo assets if i distribute that project.
…in the case of mixamo specifically which seems to be a dead platform i dont think anyone is going to sue me for using them on a github example…but the implications.
It’s suffering the standard Adobe Death: most of the software and services have been discontinued or folded heavily into Adobe software while existing features have been stripped down pretty hard. If anything, however, them being owned by Adobe and still active at all means that you have to spend extra time making sure the license isn’t violated.
Consolidation of what they deem the most profitable features into likely some other piece of Adobe owned software as well, which now has the added effect of drawing people into the various CS subscriptions.
Which is not necessarily bad for professionals at least. Most companies in the relevant fields already have licenses for Adobe products and tend to have an evaluation process for 3rd party tools where their people cannot right away use them if they were not “from” Adobe.
It’s actually very bad for professionals and you can find a LOT of stories about professionals basically having to jump ship to other software or integrate more software into their workflows either from Adobe or elsewhere. It’s actually quite bad for a lot of professionals, especially freelancers, who make up a massive portion of Adobe’s user base.
Agreed, especially in regards to competition, in terms of price, new features etc.
The biggest time I saw this would likely have been the acquisition of Macromedia (MM) by Adobe in the late 2000’s. At that point both Adobe and Macromedia had developed or acquired themselves a collection of creative apps, many of which where direct competitors e.g. Freehand vs Illustrator. Once acquired many of MM products were discontinued or left to rot, one of which was MM Director, my main multi-media development application. Shortly after it proved to be the final push to jump ship and try out a small newcomer called Unity 3D
In terms of the creative market I’d argue Adobe’s acquisitions set back competition for a good decade. Its only recently we’ve started to see realistic alternatives to Photoshop and Illustrator in the likes of Affinity Photo and Inkscape.
