Is that legal? You agree to version X, you didn't agree to version X+1, right?
So at least a license update would require confirmation of your continuing agreement with the new license, right? (whether that be silent, offering opt-out or whatever).
Otherwise "you agree to ANY future version" would equate to "we can 100% rewrite this agreement after you signed it". Doesn't seem like that would hold up in a courtroom.
Game engines ship with products & are covered by licenses. Unlike some service covered by a ToS where company can change or stop offering service at any time.
Unity silently changed the TOS to remove the clause stating you could stay with an older version of the TOS before this whole fiasco. Is that legally binding given that people probably just click “I agree”, if they were even prompted in the first place?
Is it legal that much of the digital goods we “buy” are marketed as purchases but are at best squirrelly licenses to get around letting people actually own the thing they “bought”?
So at least a license update would require confirmation of your continuing agreement with the new license, right? (whether that be silent, offering opt-out or whatever).
Otherwise "you agree to ANY future version" would equate to "we can 100% rewrite this agreement after you signed it". Doesn't seem like that would hold up in a courtroom.
Game engines ship with products & are covered by licenses. Unlike some service covered by a ToS where company can change or stop offering service at any time.