From a legal drafting standpoint I can understand the lack of the oxford comma being used. But unclear punctuation in general made it a painful read. (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/ori ... 27/5a4.jpg)
- parenthesis punctuation
- wtf is "register your Game"
- How can only one Game per Licensee be enforced? The previous license allowed any number of Games per Licensee by definition.
- 1.3 to what extent? what are we to consider "published form Crytek" to mean? (I'm going to assume the intention is "publish from" as a typo and we're not talking about some crazy form hidden away somewhere [but seriously, a typo in a legal document?])
- 1.5 as indicated in what CRYENGINE Documentation? This places burden of discovery unfairly upon the licensee. Needs to be explicit.
- 1.6 "for the sole purpose of entertainment". I've always complained about this, and it still worries me. With the word "sole" in place, the slightest notion otherwise puts a game at jeopardy of being a breach of agreement.
- 1.6 "pursuant to its documentation". This phrase introduces a gray area should a game not be developed and compiled pursuantly. Which is already nebulous given 1.5.
- 1.7 "in all media net of value added ta"?
- 2.1.3 this is actually very concerning. it has far too many ways of being interpreted. In the most restrictive sense, if Crytek hasn't explicitly stated a method through documentation it can not be used to develop a game using the engine or run it. The contents of the parenthesis provide little to no help in clarifying the intent.
- 2.1.3 concern around remote vulkan shader compiler. it is considered a tool and not part of the engine object code. it is possible that this section prevents the use of sucessfully using the CryRenderVulkan library. This is both in terms of development, runtime, and end user capability.
- 2.4. define "exploit" under the context of "in any other form". Section 2.1.4 does a decent job of explaining the scope of the word's context. Keep in mind that there is a section in this license that can be considered in the realm of technology/computer-science security and this word can have a drastically different meaning through inference.
- 2.4 Autodesk is a game engine provider. Exported resources, in any digital form, are technically code. Microsoft is a game engine provider as well. You could argue that Logitech is as well based on some of their hardware sdk samples. This should be clarified further.
- 2.4 define "technical safeguard". This is far too broad and undescriptive.
- 2.4 define "violate" under the context of "any intellectual property". Without context, the term can go far beyond any legal notions. Keep in mind that elsewhere in this license agreement personal sensibility is referenced and can change the inference of this term.
- 2.4 "transfer or assign the License or this Agreement". This actually brings up a decent question. As an individual, I have worked to develop the engine and develop a game to be rendered. Through my local legal system, I intend to at one point establish an LLC and transfer all intelectual property considering the game over to it. This would protect me as an individual from anything related to the game and it's IP for the next 40+ years. This puts me in a nasty situation where possibly Crytek double dips in Section 3, the LLC must redevelop everything from scratch, or I'm stuck with the legal responsibilities of doing business as an individual in my location. I almost want to say that this is not allowed in my location and thus subject to 9.3, but that's lawyer hours I don't care to pay for. This just seems like a mess considering the EULA is structured to begin the moment an individual "or otherwise" uses a version of the engine. How would individual work migrate to a different legal entity?
- 3.1 define "the Gross Receipts"? There are exceptions provided in section 3.3, but that doesn't explain what are considered Gross Receipts. This could lead to a painful back and forth legal battle regarding the proceedings of an audit. I'm presuming Gross Receipts from the Game, but exceptions regarding the marketplace seem to suggest Crytek has their eyes on something bigger.
- 3.3 "from release and per Game". Context of keyword "and"? Clarification of this subsections theoretical cumulative effect on exception totals?
- 3.4 please place thresholds on this. seems stupid to be required to pass statements along if you're under exception. if you're that worried about not getting your royalties, that's the purpose of audits.
- 3.5 punctuation concerning "(including, but not limited to ....)"?
- 3.5 define "exploitation".
- 3.5 "shall allow". Okay then, I'll allow it (but good luck actually getting access I suppose).
- 3.5 There really needs to be an upper limit on the cost of the audit. Yes this is a cruel theoretical, but I don't want to pay for a Crytek family member to fly first class, stay in the most luxurious hotel(s), taxi everywhere on the trip, and eat at 3 star michelin restaraunts only for them to find I owe a penny more than I paid in royalties.
- 3.5 "the divergence" What is the divergence?
- 3.5 "five per cent for Crytek's account". five of what per cent? What is Crytek's account? See above concern regarding limiting cost. If this is intended to be a 5% divergence in royalty payout in favor of Crytek, it needs to be expressed so in clear language that non-accountants will understand. Just mathematically speaking the notion of 5% can be wildly different in an additive or multiplicative context. 5% between two points of reference (gross vs paid or even paid vs due) can be significant.
- 3.x Keep in mind that you've opened the flood gates to the public and the vast majority of developers you're working with won't have a legal, finance, or HR department to have these things in a form you may expect. If you want this to be painless, front the effort so those who are inexperienced in such matters will understand and can easily comply with you. Otherwise you'll wind up with an auditor needing to spend weeks going through books, requesting additional pieces of information, etc etc only to find out that everything is in order.
- 4.1 punctuation errors?
- 4.1 honestly, you're not doing yourself any favors here. split this up into more concise pieces. marketing alone needs to be separate from the rest (see the 4.x below as well).
- 4.1 "use the trademarks". keyword "use"? I don't think this has been written as intended, given the context of 8 weeks and the notion of "final design". As literal, it means I am required to act in a manner that would otherwise be infringement if I were not given usage rights immediately prior. (you expect me to make use of the trademark before the final design is done? [see above concern about punctuation])
- 4.2 define "the splash screen". define "the credits screen". define "the documentation" because it has to be something different than what you've already defined, given that you've already mentioned that we can't distribute it ourselves. define "subject". If you don't define these things, I'm sure you're going to wind up with additional Crytek v. CIG type lawsuits no matter what.
- 4.2 you're not doing yourself any favors here by not providing a channel in which this must go through.
- 4.2 negates itself. Disapproval expressed some how? Doesn't matter as approval is given after ten days if you are not given any notice of approval. Thus section 4.1 is questionable.
- 4.x I'm not even sure how this section can be enforced in regards to content outside of the engine itself. If it's touching Cryengine code, then I can understand it being applicable. But the EULA has no hold over my website. Nor a YouTube channel, a printer, an .h264 container, or such things.
- 9.1 this completely negates the notions provided in pre-section 1.