this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
680 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59235 readers
3726 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
680
No love lost: AppLovin helpfully releases tool to switch from Unity to Godot or Unreal (www.pocketgamer.biz)
submitted 1 year ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

AppLovin’s attempts to acquire Unity last year turned sour when Unity opted for a merger with rivals ironSource instead . Now, in the ongoing shockwave of Unity's unpopular introductio...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unexpectedteapot@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They "don't" allow it, that's how licenses work.

I keep seeing comments like these on source available nonfree software, but it really doesn't factor in the fact that older software is NOT going to be used due to bugs, features missing, technical debt, secuity vulnerabilities, etc. So unless it is forked (i.e: OpenTofu), it is as good as useless for everyone but hobbyists.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's allowed by a specific clause in their TOS which assigns a EULA version dependent on the engine version. The EULA itself is different for different versions.

The point is that devs choosing to stay on an old version would not be good for Epic, so they are unlikely to directly create the circumstances where that is the logical result.

[–] Maven@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unity also had that clause

In fact, they tried to delete it after their announcement

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yup, they actually removed the entire GitHub repo that they made specifically to track those changes for transparency.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The clause is:

If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to. However, if we make changes to this Agreement, you will not be allowed to access certain Epic services or download the Licensed Technology unless you have accepted the amended Agreement.

My understanding is this is fundamentally different to the Unity clause you're pointing out.

Another thing is that Unreal is ~~open source~~ source accessible. If there's a bug in 5.0 that is resolved in 5.1 but you don't want to accept the amended terms for 5.1, it's possible to fix the bug and build the engine yourself. In the event of a significant change like the one with Unity, I imagine some dev group would just fork it and maintain it themselves.

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

They do, though. Not only do they offer multiple, flexible licenses, their basic license specifically guarantees that it is irrevocable. In fact, if that basic license isn't good enough, they are open to license negotiation.

I strongly recommend reading their basic license. It's already one of the most fair and reasonable "out of the box" licenses in the industry.

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal