Can you create and sell a game made in Unreal Engine using CC ShareAlike content?

There is a community universe known as the SCP foundation. Everything pertaining to this universe is for the most part under a CC ShareAlike attribution. There are very few exceptions to this. I read in the creator EULA for UE that this is an incompatible license and using any reference to the SCP Foundation requires the entire game to be made ShareAlike by the licensing on their wiki.

Here is the relevant information from their community: Licensing Guide - SCP Foundation

Game Developers: You are free to
create and share videogames based on
SCP, but you must comply with all
aspects of the license as it relates
to software. That means releasing the
work under CC-by-SA-3.0, including the
release statement prominently on any
store page the game is distributed on
(as well as developer websites and the
like), releasing the game without DRM
if the game costs money (steam and the
like have developer options for this),
not imposing additional legal
restrictions through EULAs or
equivalent user forms, and not
attempting to impede any alternate
distribution sources so long as those
sources in turn follow the terms of
the license.

However after talking to a developer of an Unreal game based on the SCP universe about the EULA, they told me this:

This is referring to Unreal Engine
itself, you are not allowed to
entirely re-release it under a
different license/sub-license, as with
any proprietary technology. We have
already addressed this with our
Epic/Unreal rep in addition to the SCP
wiki Internet Outreach and Licensing

content we make and import into Unreal
Engine doesn’t magically become the
property of Unreal Engine/Epic Games,
honestly that simple when it comes
down to it. Hence, why the game
release (verses re-releasing Unreal
Engine itself or its source code from,
which is what the EULA you posted is
referring to) is a different scenario.

Games/software are not entirely
defined by the technology utilized in
their production.

Here’s a link to the game’s page in question which shows that the game is releasing under ShareAlike:

So I am confused. Are we allowed to use ShareAlike content in games or not? The EULA says one thing, but a developer who has a rep at Unreal says otherwise. Some similar questions on this forum have also said it’s not allowed and one of the people responding to those questions claimed to be an attorney for Epic.

I second that question.

Answer to the previous question about CC BY SA states that using CC BY SA content in game would require Unreal Engine itself to be licensed under CC BY SA, but that doesn’t feel right. Otherwise, creating any game under CC BY SA would be impossible (because this game uses some engine: Unreal Engine, Unity or other), but we know, that there are games using CC BY SA content on Unity, and even more, creating any Windows EXEcutable, with content licensed under CC BY SA, would require Windows itself being licensed under CC BY SA, because this executable can only run in Windows!?

Well it is possible to create your own game engine. So it’s not impossible to create a work that uses CC by SA. You don’t pay windows any license fee to create a program so whatever license the C languages are under is probably liberal enough to work with CC by SA, don’t feel like looking that part up right now. But Unreal specifically says no SA content in both the EULAs for game dev and then this dev tells me that a rep at Unreal says that it’s okay. I just want to know what the rules for the EULA actually are so I don’t break it and am not limiting myself with my options on content I can include.

The answer is yes

I don’t know where did scp got this, but this point is missing: you don’t have to relicense the engine’s source code. Heck, you don’t even have to release any source code at all (yet releasing project’s is a good move).

Your poor grammar is leading me to believe you don’t know what you are talking about on this subject.

Both EULAs for the Unreal Engine:

Have a section for non-compatible licenses. And on both, content that is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike is not compatible.

The entire SCP universe and everything that derives from it must exist under a CC ShareAlike license. It is what the community decided to use as the license for their creative works. So we have content that makes it so if a game is based on it, then the entirety of the game must be released under CC ShareAlike which is incompatible with Unreal’s EULAs. But then we have this game’s dev, and now you, saying that it’s fine, even though it is clearly a breach of the EULA. I would really prefer to get an employee for Unreal to weigh in here, but I can find no way to contact Unreal directly.

Code or content under the following licenses, for example, are prohibited: GNU General Public License (GPL), Lesser GPL (LGPL) (unless you are merely dynamically linking a shared library), or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.

Any particular grammar corrections or you just having problems with reading in general?

Following your logic, apple and microsoft will have to release the entire source code of their operating systems just because I can compile linux using gcc in windows or macos.

It doesn’t work like this.
You’ll have to release your project under SA license, but not every single tool used to make it.
UE is not part of the project, it’s a tool. SA doesn’t spread that deep.

You may not combine, Distribute, or
otherwise use the Licensed Technology
with any code or other content which
is covered by a license that would
directly or indirectly require that
all or part of the Licensed Technology
be governed under any terms other than
those of this Agreement

“Licensed Technology” means any or all
of the Engine Code and Content,
including as modified by you under the
Engine License.

Your project isn’t Engine Code nor Engine Content.

It’s mostly the “I don’t know where did” that threw me off with your original comment.

But let’s go further down the definitions laid out in the EULA instead of just stopping at the definition for Licensed Technology

“Engine Code” means the Source Code and object code of the Unreal® Engine, including any future Versions, as made available to you by Epic under this Agreement, and any object code compiled from that Source Code.

So having an SCP game exist within the Unreal Engine requires the game to be compiled. This compiled code must now be both Unreal’s License and SA, but they are incompatible according to Unreal’s EULA. I don’t see how these two things can be treated like they are completely separate. Especially when the only way one can exist is through the other.

I would understand if they were just dynamically linking to the SCP website or something similar, but they are bringing the SCP universe to life through the Unreal Engine.

Also, I don’t know if you ever read the other question that another commenter left, but Unreal Staff directly said it was prohibited by the EULA. So why is this game dev, and now you, saying it’s not.

K, you can read “got this” as “got if from”, should be American enough.

I don’t see how

You should check your vision then.
Lazy person is looking for an excuse while others are looking for solutions.

having an SCP game exist within the Unreal Engine requires the game to be compiled

No, it doesn’t.
Nothing prevents you from even distributing a not compiled project.

dynamically linking

FYI: compiled engine code is dynamically linked to game’s resources, so all you actually have to do is to not encrypt the pak file with free resources, legally speaking.
This pak doesn’t even have to be distributed with the game, it can be a mod or a dlc.
As long as the game is not “built upon it”.
You can also just distribute the project’s source so the user will build it himself.
EULA doesn’t allow distributing products with linked SA content, but it does allow not distributing such build.

Unreal Staff directly said

Unreal staff should hire better lawyer.

CC-BY-SA doesn’t require the whole game to be distributed under CC-BY-SA.
I don’t know where this misconception is came from, but it did.
CC-BY-SA only require you to do SA for the licensed work, contributions to the licensed work and derivations of the licensed work.

Just because some people can’t read, doesn’t mean you have an excuse to not read yourself:

“Collection” means a collection … in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions

A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.

You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License … but this does not require the Collection
apart from the Work itself to be made
subject to the terms of this License

Now you owe me $800 for legal assistance.

It wasn’t the “got this” part, it was the “I don’t know where did” part as I quoted. The correct way to write that sentence would have been, “I don’t know where SCP got this…” And again in your latest comment, “I don’t know where this misconception is came from, but it did.” Just remove the “is” and it would be proper.

Back onto the actual topic. Are you implying that the game dev is going to release their game uncompiled, because I highly doubt that is going to be the case since it is distributing through Steam.

Also, I don’t know why you are thinking that this work is a collection, by the definitions of the CC-by-SA license. It’s clearly an adaptation. The entirety of the SCP universe is not being redistributed. Parts of it are being taken and used in the game, most likely not remaining faithful to the original work.

And can you provide some proof you are even allowed to practice law since you are joking about charging for your “assistance”.

Can you prove I am not?

Go read the by-sa 3.0 license yourself.
It’s all in there.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that SA part only covers the licensed object only, not the entire work it is part of nor tools used to either make or use the object in question.

UE EULA clause is there in case of you mixing the engine source code with some by-sa or gpl code, because you are only allowed to distribute the engine under that very EULA, not to restrict use of some assets just because their license if pro-freedom.

The burden of proof isn’t on me. You are the one claiming to be able to practice law by making a statement about charging for your services, which the act of charging for legal services is itself illegal if you aren’t licensed to practice law.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter one bit what the license for CC-by-SA says. All that matters are the terms set up in the UE EULA. If the EULA says you aren’t allowed to use the color red in your project, then you aren’t allowed to use the color red. If you do then you break the EULA and are no longer allowed to use their licensed technology, because it’s just that, their licensed technology. They dictate the terms of use, not other licenses for different things.

And you keep acting like it only has to do with mixing code in with their source code. If it only applied to code, then why would they specify “code or other content”. There would be no need whatsoever to specify “other content” if it only applied to code. If they say you are not allowed to use the Licensed Technology with other content that is under certain licenses, CC-by-SA being one such license, then you are not allowed to do that as per the terms of their EULA.

You clearly haven’t known what you were talking about since your first comment and you just continue to prove that with every comment you make. I honestly wish I can just contact Epic directly, but it seems to be impossible as everything just leads back here to the answer hub. I’m honestly just hoping that someone at Epic’s legal comes on here at some point to answer. I’m not going to go down this rabbit hole with you any further though.

The more we bump this one, the higher is our chance someone will notice.

as for UE EULA, this part is important:

You may not combine, Distribute, or
otherwise use the Licensed Technology
with any code or other content which
is covered by a license that would
directly or indirectly require that
all or part of the Licensed Technology
be governed under any terms other than
those of this Agreement

But this one is not:

for example

Even their example explicitly says that it is particular application what is important and not the license itself:

Lesser GPL (LGPL) (unless you are merely dynamically linking a shared library)

So as long as you don’t have to license the whole “licensed technology” under the same license, you’re good.

as for UE EULA, this part is

But this one is not:

for example

Why are you ignoring this part:

the following licenses, for example, are prohibited

In my opinion, EULA directly says that following licenses are prohibited, “for example” in this context means that prohibited licenses are not limited to the list.

because I am able to read this part:


For example means that this is an example.
And the very same example shows that you shouldn’t blindly follow the example and think about your particular situation.

because I am able to read this part:


Doesn’t look like you are.

Lesser GPL (LGPL) (unless you are
merely dynamically linking a shared

This part is related to LGPL only, which is out of scope for this question.

Still no proper answer on this it seems.

Yes… And it doesn’t seem like somebody from Epic is going to answer at all…
Anyway, “SCP: Pandemic” guy did it and isn’t sued nor by Epic, nor by SCP, so, I guess, this is legal to some degree.

Well just because nothing happened could just mean that Epic isn’t aware that something was released that would break their EULA. They probably don’t even know that the SCP universe in its entirety is CC-by-SA. And it’s sucks too because that game is so barebones and ■■■■■■, it was obviously just a cash grab using the SCP name as a way to syphon money from its fanbase.