• EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I still don’t understand how modifying contracts that already exist without written consent from the other party is even legal. I mean, isn’t the whole point of a contract to enforce the conditions of an agreement? If one side can just change it willy-nilly, doesn’t that kind of defeat the whole purpose of a contract in the first place?

    Seriously, if someone more legal-minded could explain this, that would be fantastic.

    • blindsight@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t get it, either. Can’t developers just abide by their old contract and not update to newer versions of Unity?

      • recycledbits@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unity themselves have committed to that option (if you don’t like our new future TOS, keep the old version and don’t update) in writing (that was in their deleted github repo). So it seems extremely likely that they would lose in court.

        The key words in the above are ‘in court’. If you’re an indie unhappy with an x*$.20 charge, chances are a lawsuit will not improve your day.

      • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure about the first part (you’d think so), but as for the second part, a lot of clients are set by default to auto-update. Don’t know about Unity, though.