Isn’t this action (removal of the git repo) essentially an admission that:
- Unity is doing something shady;
- Unity knows it’s doing something shady;
- Unity knows when the public sees what they’re doing what they’re doing, it’ll be recognized as totally something shady?
Yes slim, it’s shady.
In this digital era, you’d have thought they would know that it would leave a trail. Of course, it’s a calculated risk.
A suspiciously wiped and cleaned trail is still a trail.
But man, are they bad at math
I don’t see how any of this would hold up in court. I’m pretty sure you can’t be liable for a new tos for what is essentially new software that you didn’t use in your project. This company is clearly run by fucktards who are hoping to prey upon devs that just don’t know better or can’t fight back.
The Unity Runtime (Basicallt the core of the engine) is technically licensed as a subscription. So when the free license renews, this is included in the new ToS and it’ll be a lot harder to fight.
Obviously not a lawyer, but I’m not 100% certain that the billing terms would stand up to legal scrutiny. It’s been kinda hard to keep up with this story so my apologies if any of this is wrong, but I believe that they said they were wanting to use an “aggregate proprietary model” to determine downloads. What that basically means (I think) is “we’ll tell you how much you have to pay us but we can’t independently justify any individual charge”.
Again, I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know of anything off the top of my head that’d make that illegal, but it also doesn’t really feel like it’d square with how things work. I mean if companies could just make up a number and say you owe them that much without being able to say why or whether or not that number comports in any way with reality, then what’s stopping every company from doing that? What’s stopping a magazine for example from coming back to you and saying “Yes, you paid us for the magazine. But our proprietary aggregate model that totally reflects reality promise tm suggests that you might have shown that magazine to two or three other people after you purchased it from us. So that means you have to pay us three instances of the review licence fee.”?
I don’t know. Obviously this is all scuzzy and morally wrong. It’s just that even factoring in that this is a subscription service and that they are a corporation with an army of lawyers who’ll likely win any challenge to it, I can’t really shake the feeling that there’s something fundamentally legally wrong about that aspect of it in particular that wouldn’t hold up in court. Even for them.
What’s with these companies going full-evil all of a sudden.
Interest rates
The infinite money dried up. Now they are out of ideas on how to make a profit because they werent before.
Also investors pushing for higher profit margins. Unity is publicly traded company.
and poor parsec just got bought by unity, definitely gonna go down with the ship for profit
So the companies “aren’t making enough money”, which means they don’t have enough to pay us, which means we don’t have enough to spend on them.
Hmm.
They only “don’t have enough to pay us” insofar as they don’t have enough to pay us without sacrificing record high profits or CEO salaries.
deleted by creator
To be fair it does seem like there’s some kind of coordinated effort going on.
Others did it and faced no consequences. No government step-in, no mass customer loss. When there are no consequences for greedy monopolistic behaviours, greedy monopolies act greedily. Welcome to market capitalism without proper regulation.
deleted by creator
The trash fire rises.
Enshittification… enshittification everywhere
ooffff
Exactly, everyone seems to be jumping in the bandwagon these days. Makes me wonder if it was part of the plan from day one of the web 2.0.
The cheap money is gone. Now suddenly companies need to find profit to satisfy investors.
I hope shareholders like watching people jump ship.
This isn’t far from the truth. I run a small business and I can assure you, making a profit in the last 3-4 years has been rough.
part of the plan from day one of the web 2.0
Ah yes,
XMLHTTPRequest, the ultimate bait-and-switch.Yeah, gotta love people that have no clue taking phrases they don’t understand and applying them to non-technical conversation.
deleted by creator
Wow, that’s a new one. Somehow your post has -1 downvote, and it’s counting as an upvote?
I’ve seen that a couple times before, I think something just didn’t federate properly.
This would probably happen if the downvote didn’t federate, but the Undo action of the downvote did.
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!
What’s the point of having an outdated copy of the ToS? Unity did this just so that it’s not so easy for everyone to see future changes.
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?
Ooooh, I understand now! That’s fucked up, and that’s so dumb of them.
I mean you’re not wrong but also that’s already done for us by the Wayback Machine.
But yeah this is major ignorant corporate Streisand-effecting. Basically openly admitting they don’t care about the ethics of their company.
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.
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 pullin 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.
github giveth, and github can (and does)
To be fair, this is a feature not a bug. The original creator is the one who taketh away.
True, generally. Unless DMCA notices force github to taketh away for them… :) youtube-dl and others found out.
Say NO to centralized source management platforms
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.
Fair enough… archive.is and other solutions then to capture their pages before/after changes.
How in the world did they think no one would notice? Aren’t they a tech savvy company?
I’m already switching to Godot.
Here’s link to it, https://godotengine.org/
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.
I’m just a curious who installed unity for giggles so someone can probably tell you better, but yes you can, Import them into a project and then look in that project’s folder.
Well it’s good to know I don’t have to start from scratch. I’ll take a look, thanks!
Is there a web archive equivalent to github repos? At least for the most popular ones.
I know there are hard copies in Svalbard’s seed vault, but they’re more for a one-in-thousands-of-years post-apocalyptic scenarios than this.
Some of the github repos were archived in the Software Heritage Archive. Some deleted repos i was looking for were available there.
Are they that dumb or are they new to the internet?
Prime example
Looking at their recent actions, they would definitely seem to be pretty fuckin dumb.
Their CEO was a former EA CEO. My money is on greed and arrogance.
What do you mean?
Just wow man
I bet money on that they don’t listen to the professionals they have hired. Otherwise, they wouldn’t do this or anything that stupid.
Git is distributed you can add any remote with one line
Everyone uses GitHub, a Microsoft product, to host code
GitHub is subject to the DMCA, for example
Did we learn nothing from SourceForge, my friends?!?!?
Every website hosted in the US is subject to DMCA (or directly getting sued for copyright infringement). Even if you host your own website and refuse to comply with DMCA requests, they’ll just send them to your hosting provider instead.
“Oh no, Microsoft DMCA’d my project! Whatever will I do with this fully intact git history that I have mirrored by design on every single development machine?”
git remote seturl origin https://codeberg.org/me/my-projectI’ve gotta say, this doesn’t strike me as a particularly substantial issue. I’ll admit that it becomes harder to find contributors when you’re trying to operate outside of the $MAINSTREAM_PLATFORM, but that’s going to be a perpetual problem in the world of “Forge-likes” until someone figures out how to federate the social-media aspects of it (sidenote: why hasn’t anyone tried doing that?)
EDIT: Of course someone was already working on it. Why did I even think of assuming otherwise? Godspeed to the ForgeFed project!
Did we learn nothing from SourceForge, my friends?!?!?
Isn’t GitLab an alternative?
That sounds like a company I want to completely rely on to develop a product, a company and my whole dev career.
Like the kid that took his ball and went home and then is surprised that nobody wants to play with him.
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
In many cases the have not been proven wrong.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7933449/Screen_Shot_2017_02_05_at_11.21.48_AM.png){kind=link}