Hi I imagine this must have already been answered but after googling it all I can find are threads on if you’re allowed to upload projects containing commercial assets/ assets paid for, in general.
Now my specific question that I can’t find the answer to is, am I legally allowed to upload projects to git that contain paid for assets if I set the repository to private?
To be clear I know you can’t upload to public repos.
Yes.
By “git” do you mean “GitHub” or “GitLab” or something? Because Git itself has no concept of a repository being “set” to public, private, whatever. That’s all up to the service you’re using to host it.
My apologies I didn’t know there was something also referred to as Gitlab, I mean Github.
On Github I’ve seen there’s an option to make a repo public or private.
Can someone else please confirm that I can use GitHub for storing a project with paid for assets if the repo is set to private.
yes of course.
*small side note:
if you have multiple people working/using those plugins, some plugins might be per seat/user (check asset store licenses for more info)
Private repo is less of an issue. As long you remember you are using 3rd party assets.
The issue may become, when you make repo public, with 3rd party assets and you don’t own respective licences.
I promise you that if this wasn’t allowed that the software industry would collapse overnight. It is entirely legal to do this with a private repo.
The EULA actually used to forbid it, it seems that has changed since and I doubt it has even once been enforced. Most of Unity’s EULAs are unreasonable anyway.
Do you have a citation for this? Because I don’t remember this at all and I can’t find anything on the forums about it or through any other searches.
i remember reading something like this for certain assets or specific licenses,
https://web.archive.org/web/20190202163448/https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms
“Computers physically located at a single location”. Also “may only be moved to another Site subject to prior written approval from Licensor”.
You can say reading this as it forbidding source hosting is uncharitable (although, do we need to be charitable to terms that require written approval from Licensor to move? Has anyone in the history of Unity done this?), but I don’t think it’s completely unreasonable.
“Site” license is now the “Restricted Single Entity” license on the Asset Store, which now more reasonably tries to restrict the usage of an asset to be within one Entity, which makes a lot more sense, as opposed to the one physical location that “Site” tried to do.
Yeah, I’m gonna go ahead and say this is an uncharitable read because this same thing also could be interpreted as saying you can’t use asset store assets on a school computer if you have them on a personal external hard drive you carry from place to place.
edit: in fact, I’d say that this is probably specifically about Unity as something a project is running from, not respositories.
It actively tried to restrict asset usage to one physical location.
Even excluding repos, it definitely restricted people from working remotely, which is an even bigger issue, so I don’t see how the read can be uncharitable when the terms are bananas.
In fact I don’t see a potential charitable read of this that isn’t “it’s a bunch of nonsense, ignore it” without a big chunk of the community having violated it.
You’re both wrong. That old EULA is talking about
not backup and store. You do not “install and use” assets in a VCS environment. You backup and store them there.
Besides, you usually do not want editor assets submitted into VCS (at least not in installed form) in a team environment (you want to install them manually instead), because they are per seat basis. You would need a seat for everyone who checks out the repo.
You are also wrong. Unity always had at least two types of asset store licenses. A per seat one and a per project / per entity one specifically for assets that are part of the game (art assets?) and can’t be excluded and used only in some seats. “Site” license is the older form of the current “per entity” license.
They restrict it correctly / reasonably now but how they used to restrict it is by talking about a singular physical location, making everyone having a project with such assets and people working on it from different locations automatically violate the EULA.
Again, I’ll concede that maybe including repos is uncharitable, but I hope we can also agree that there is no charitable read that most people didn’t violate at the time, making this part of the EULA bullshit.
Does “Planet Earth” qualify as a “single location”?