I’ve read the license for Defold and have noticed the following detail:
§8. EFFECT OF CANCELLATION, 8.1:
’…you will no longer be entitled to use the Defold Software in any Games that you have created prior to the date of cancellation, even if you have published such Games via a third party publication platform.’
In the event of my account being cancelled, would I then have to pull my game(s) from all platforms? Thank you.
Good question. @Sara or @benjamin.glaser have both wrestled with the lawyers plenty of times and they should be able to provide an answer.
Prior to the date of cancellation? Is that how it reads? I am a little confused.
Hi, this section refers to the event of you being in breach of the license agreement. And only then. Full details of what is a breach can be found in the Ts and Cs, but if you for instance use the engine to make spyware or something racist, we reserve the right to have you remove any and all software built on the engine (i.e. the spyware or the racist game). If you just use the engine to make great games, you are all good and run no risk of having to take anything built down. Hope that answers your Q.
The wording is “if we believe you are in violation of ToS” so to paranoid outsiders they can view it as a switch King could flip to kill any competitor’s games who heavily invested in Defold. I’ve tried to help spread the word of Defold and how useful it is for gamedev but things like this (along with mistakes King made in the past) are always brought up and it really poisons the discussion no matter how great Defold is.
To be specific, the terms say “if we reasonably believe” which is a standard legal phrasing. I am not a lawyer myself, but I know this phrasing is common. I have reached out to our legal department to get some info on why it’s phrased as it is.
But regardless, reasonably believe is not “when we feel like it”, and what is considered a breach is stated in the terms. Just to make this very clear, there is no other agenda here than to provide the community and industry with, what we feel, is a great tool. And completely without any cost. if King was scared of a competitor using the engine we wouldn’t release it for public use. With that said, if you make (extreme example coming up) a child pornography title and release that on the web somewhere with a big “made with Defold” on the intro screen, well, when we find out, we want the legal power to not only have you stop using Defold, but also have you remove that software. Simple as that.
Other tools do have similar legal wording, but they also don’t have the same company history so it’s an uphill battle to convince people of the good will. Most (been a while since ai fully read other tool’s tos though) simply prohibit showing “made with our tool” for certain classes of products, such as legal xxx. It is a completely understandable CYA but makes it a harder sell to convince people to give the tool a chance.
I’d look at the licenses of Unity / Unreal / Lumberyard and see what they say compared for exact legal wording and best balance of protecting yourself vs giving assurance to legitimate devs.
"…reasonably believe is not “when we feel like it”, and what is considered a breach is stated in the terms."
Sure, but King can change those terms at any time, so this isn’t this meaningless? King could change the terms to (ridiculous example incoming for clarity): ‘Everyone should give make us breakfast once a year, and those who do not are in violation of this terms, so their accounts will be terminated.’
Look at this from my perspective (as an outsider): Imagine I make the new Clash of Clans, and millions of dollars are rolling onto my desk every day. King could throw off this altruism and immediately start charging me royalties of XX%, or make me pay them X millions of dollars. My understanding is they have every right to.
This is a great engine, but I feel there is a deficit of trust about, and this sort of thing makes people like me skeptical.
Making a child pornography game is a poor example, because it’s illegal throughout the western world. If someone made one, they would be thrown in jail, and the game systematically eradicated from all platforms. King’s response would not matter one bit.
I see no valid reason for the license as it stands. My understanding is that for most engines, when you uninstall them from your machine, any modification in terms no longer applies to your games. So you could add a no pornography/no racial hatred clause and still protect the interests of developers far into the future.
Extending on what @jvcreddit and @Pkeod said.
This issue with the license really is a problem, pretty much everyone i’ve shown Defold to stands in fear of what King “might do” in the future.
I believe that King is honest in it’s pursuit, but better wording is needed in this.
You can’t just say that you will remove other people’s work if you have ‘a reason to’ and expect them to comply. Specially if Defold is to gain traction after beta, changing this will be crucial.
For a comparison:
Unity’s approach is far more dignifying, it says the content is yours and yours alone. Yet if you read the ToS, they have it that if you do breach it, they will terminate your account, which makes it’s impossible to access the engine. But, never the less, they can’t force you to do anything, like un-publish your games or whatnot.
Like the above post said, that’s just beyond unreasonable. And if something illegal is done with the engine eventually, well it’s illegal to start with.
Just wanted to say that apparently the new terms here address the above mentioned issue, or so it seems to the best of my understanding.
Right at the beginning it says:
You own your stuff – You will retain the rights and ownership of your creations in Defold and any intellectual property, code and assets you upload.
Furthermore even in the account cancellation section, the most demanding statement it has is:
you will no longer be entitled to use the Defold Software in any Games that you have created prior to the date of cancellation, even if you have published such Games via a third party publication platform.
Which is standard, fair and understandable.
Also, again further down it’s explicit in listing:
- OWNERSHIP OF YOUR GAMES
Save for the Defold Software (including any modifications to, or derivative works from, the Defold Software) we make no claim over your Games or any intellectual property rights that you include in your Games.
So I believe this clears the original issue.
I just wanted to say congratulations to the legal team for doing this, and actually at this stage this is one of the clearest most direct licenses I’ve read, great work.
Glad you think it’s more clear now. And thank you for the earlier feedback, all which helps us do better!
