Apparently, administrative permissions and the name/URL. In this case also the dev. As it's under MIT-license, they can't buy the software itself, but they can control the public appearance and merges, until someone forks it and becomes more successful.
> As it's under MIT-license, they can't buy the software itself
This is a common misconception. Just because the author or original IP owner chose to release it under MIT doesn't mean they no longer own it -- and if the company wants to acquire it they can. They can never remove-from-the-internet the existing MIT-licensed versions (though they could take down their own copies), but being the owners they could certainly decide to release future versions under a different license.
Lots of companies have great success using GitHub repositories as a marketing tool. Coplay seem to have identified this and decided to invest in the idea without considering strategy.
Owning a popular repository that your audience is engaged with is valuable because they’re using your free software: you create loyal users that you can then sell to. A successful open source project operated by your company is valuable as a lead generator. The repository itself has no value. Open source by business (this strategy) is just freemium for software.
Why they thought announcing the acquisition of a repository would be of interest to anyone is beyond me.
Disclaimer: I'm in the mobile gaming industry for last ~5 years, I'm not a Unity dev, my work is on Unity is mostly Business Intelligence (AdTech-Marketing Tech) like client side-ML, analytics, live-ops, segmentation etc.
I wasn't expecting to see UnityMCP in the article, so I'm kinda surprised.
When MCP's started popping up, MCP for Unity was the first thing I searched for, I've used it, when it became unmaintained (maybe for a 1-2 months?) I forked it, made a few nice updates, even as a someone that used the project I didn't realized the transition of the repository!
I know hundreds of game devs, so let me share my perspective.
- Your target audience is not HN people, I'm pretty sure %80 of them doesn't even know what MCP is.
- I use Cursor, %99 of game devs are using Rider, MCP tooling and integrations around it not mature enough to gain their attention yet.
- Game devs and their leads are (mostly) dinosaurs that looks skeptical using AI at work, like when I was in Rovio, you weren't allowed to use tools like, Claude, Cursor, OpenAI etc.
- I'm not surprised acquisition of an OSS project didn't get coverage on media.
Would I use it as someone who only knows the basics of Unity Editor?
- Maybe.
Do I think someone who works as a Game dev and knows Unity really well and would use it?
- Probably not. (Note: at the office right now, asked a few game dev's and they were like, naaah)
- - - - -
Your product looks cool, having something that directly works inside Unity is really neat but I don't think it would be the moat.
I think there is so much potential, if you can build a really good agent, think like Manus for Unity, that works directly in Unity and making the MCP related optional because it would be nice to have, Unity Editor part is the easiest part for them.
Ask this, would it be useful for a game developer working in a company like Scopely, Zynga, Dream Games etc?
Game dev / producer here. If they haven't tried it, they can't really comment on the potential value, can they? That's like devs in the early days of AI saying, "It sucks, it'll never be good."
One easy case -- it's great at debugging issues that include data in Unity scenes. It can quickly look at a snapshot of editor state / component configuration / serialized data and tell you, "oh, this gameObject's Vector3 pos value is wrong".
Not revolutionary on its own, but a great feature, and there are more.
1. If you're willing to share your Unity MCP project upgrades, I'd love to check it out and perhaps merge into our project. I couldn't find it in your Github.
2. With "Manus for Unity" do you mean an AI tool that does tasks for you in the background? like Codex or Cursor Background Tasks?
2. We've got a couple of companies similar to those you've mentioned using the Coplay product, but they mainly use the Record & Replay feature for liveops pipelines. https://youtu.be/Ia6o4ylI41I
> The old URL redirects to the new one, so in theory existing posts/backlinks keep working.
We also agreed the original creator wouldn’t reuse the “unity-mcp” repo name under his GitHub profile, which could break redirects.
Why?
A lot of times I faced with page 404 when clicked GitHub links that have been moved.
Isn't it good idea to do it like that
- Move repo to new org (to move stats and activity)
- Create repo with the same name that are fork of a target repo
- Update readme to explain repo was moved
- Archive the repo to place a warning on top of the repo
This way make users have to click link in original github repo, to go on your repo.
So it would be a problem if you need to show a numbers and you need to fake activity. But if you don't need fake activity, it is not a problem, because a real people who really looking for solution will be able to click one more link.
On the other hand, this way ensure that whole content will be available by indexed links.
How to prevent 404 and why people still faces with it on GitHub?
I've always seen the redirect when the repo is moved. The GitHub docs mention the redirect as well. Are you sure you're not seeing another scenario like a fork and the original repo is deleted?
Seems like they could’ve avoided a lot of the failure with a normal sponsorship.
What they attempted here seems akin to a “mega-sponsorship” with more baggage than they were prepares for.
I don’t think taking over/contributing to an OSS project is a bad marketing move at all, but typically you’d contribute the company’s resources and expertise to make it worth it.
Hiring the project lead is definitely a good step, but the timing feels off. Something that would feel more natural to me:
Sponsorship -> Hire the guy -> Transfer branding
All with some time in between.
They way it feels less like a hostile takeover, which users have been trained to quickly jump ship when happening.
My understanding of what this article does not say aloud: it seems that this startup wants to get "free exposure"* by being the owner of the open source repo and potentially good reputation from media coverage. It's not unreasonable, and I don't want to comment on whether those specific motivations are "good" or "bad", but do want to point out obvious issues:
> we like open source and want Unity MCP to stay relevant and open source indefinitely.
It goes both ways. What happens if your startup goes under, which has a 99% probability? By that time, the project roadmap and governance is completely under your company's control. How/if are you going to "return" the project to open source community, and would it still matter then?
> SEO of the repo gets reset
To be honest it is not completely unreasonable, and that is indeed one more thing to worry if it completely depends on another company's whim. Also, SEO is rarely a thing people talk about when maintaining a project, and this is the first time I see "SEO" and OSS appearing in the same sentence.
> It's possible that nobody cares when tiny companies acquire fairly popular OSS repos. Our social posts barely moved the needle.
What do you expect? If I have to guess, there is not a ton of overlap of (heavy) social media users and open source contributors, and even less so for these projects that focus on specific areas.
* Not really free, there is a one-time purchase fee, apparently.
The SEO bullet is inaccurate. You will temporarily lose position as the new URL is consumed and the new URL is re-associated with the old. It takes time.
It seems like you wanted a short term boost from it, but you're most likely to get a long term latent boost from it.
Try integrating it more deeply and persistently into your product and brand if you haven't, interacting with the mcp userbase consistently and meticulously.
Isn't it just a temporary thing that search engines rank you down but you quickly regain popularity as soon people link the new one and they notice traffic?
Hey, at least you got the most important bit right ;)
> One thing we did get right: maintainer buy-in. The repo had more than just the creator maintaining it, so we had real conversations and planning sessions with maintainers before making changes. We were transparent, kept them in the loop, and appreciated the support.
I guess that SEO is also important somewhat. But if the product itself is good, which I assume it is as you bought it, then that should fix itself over time. Even more so because the repo is still "just a baby" considering the first commit was in March of this year. So by the end of the year you should be right back on track, probably sooner as you aren't starting from scratch.
I mean, I guess the big lesson is to not buy a open source repository hoping to use it for marketing. Which, seems like common sense to me if I am being honest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> One thing we did get right: maintainer buy-in. The repo had more than just the creator maintaining it, so we had real conversations and planning sessions with maintainers before making changes. We were transparent, kept them in the loop, and appreciated the support.
"Maintainer buy-in" sounds kind of misleading, unless they actually paid the other maintainers too, and I do not get the impression from that point that they did.
Why exactly would anyone care about an MIT licensed project being bought? I don't blame Pocket Gamer for realising it was a waste of time putting the article. I sense they simply wanted to free marketing to go with it, but their purchase of the repo is pointless otherwise. An MIT licensed repo is meaningless as a owned product as anyone can and will do as they like with it. It's also a community where you can't get away with pretending you were remotely key in building the software up to that point.
Reading this felt like visiting an alien planet. The software is MIT-licensed. All the talk of “buying” it and “ROI”, SEO, etc was just depressing and shows how utterly poisoned the culture around software has become.
While I agree with your reaction, and would feel the same myself, they didn't buy the code, they bought the repo, it's stated quite clearly in my opinion.
Typically I would find this kind of PR stunt irksome, but I don't begrudge the little guy doing what they can to get some attention on their product, and it's an interesting read non the less since I hadn't really considered the logistics of buying an open source repo before.
I suppose a better way to put it, would be to say they bought the stars/links/name, which I have mixed feelings about.
> Media outlets don’t care about OSS repo acquisitions (and probably nobody else does either)
I don't want to be mean, but I'm no surprised by this.
Yes, and given all the emphasis placed on SEO, this post is just a advertisement
What does "OSS repo acquisition" even mean?
They paid and hired the developer of an open source program for their AI startup to give them control over it.
I don't know why they'd report on it in startup-speak like this, I doubt investors will care. Must be an ad.
If the repo is popular it does have potential to funnel some users to their startup product. And apparently it did do that in the end.
Apparently, administrative permissions and the name/URL. In this case also the dev. As it's under MIT-license, they can't buy the software itself, but they can control the public appearance and merges, until someone forks it and becomes more successful.
> As it's under MIT-license, they can't buy the software itself
This is a common misconception. Just because the author or original IP owner chose to release it under MIT doesn't mean they no longer own it -- and if the company wants to acquire it they can. They can never remove-from-the-internet the existing MIT-licensed versions (though they could take down their own copies), but being the owners they could certainly decide to release future versions under a different license.
Lots of companies have great success using GitHub repositories as a marketing tool. Coplay seem to have identified this and decided to invest in the idea without considering strategy.
Owning a popular repository that your audience is engaged with is valuable because they’re using your free software: you create loyal users that you can then sell to. A successful open source project operated by your company is valuable as a lead generator. The repository itself has no value. Open source by business (this strategy) is just freemium for software.
Why they thought announcing the acquisition of a repository would be of interest to anyone is beyond me.
> Why they thought announcing the acquisition of a repository would be of interest to anyone is beyond me.
Isn't the announcement itself just one more piece of SEO? Perhaps the most important one.
Disclaimer: I'm in the mobile gaming industry for last ~5 years, I'm not a Unity dev, my work is on Unity is mostly Business Intelligence (AdTech-Marketing Tech) like client side-ML, analytics, live-ops, segmentation etc.
I wasn't expecting to see UnityMCP in the article, so I'm kinda surprised.
When MCP's started popping up, MCP for Unity was the first thing I searched for, I've used it, when it became unmaintained (maybe for a 1-2 months?) I forked it, made a few nice updates, even as a someone that used the project I didn't realized the transition of the repository!
I know hundreds of game devs, so let me share my perspective.
- Your target audience is not HN people, I'm pretty sure %80 of them doesn't even know what MCP is. - I use Cursor, %99 of game devs are using Rider, MCP tooling and integrations around it not mature enough to gain their attention yet.
- Game devs and their leads are (mostly) dinosaurs that looks skeptical using AI at work, like when I was in Rovio, you weren't allowed to use tools like, Claude, Cursor, OpenAI etc.
- I'm not surprised acquisition of an OSS project didn't get coverage on media.
Would I use it as someone who only knows the basics of Unity Editor?
- Maybe.
Do I think someone who works as a Game dev and knows Unity really well and would use it?
- Probably not. (Note: at the office right now, asked a few game dev's and they were like, naaah)
- - - - -
Your product looks cool, having something that directly works inside Unity is really neat but I don't think it would be the moat.
I think there is so much potential, if you can build a really good agent, think like Manus for Unity, that works directly in Unity and making the MCP related optional because it would be nice to have, Unity Editor part is the easiest part for them.
Ask this, would it be useful for a game developer working in a company like Scopely, Zynga, Dream Games etc?
Game dev / producer here. If they haven't tried it, they can't really comment on the potential value, can they? That's like devs in the early days of AI saying, "It sucks, it'll never be good."
One easy case -- it's great at debugging issues that include data in Unity scenes. It can quickly look at a snapshot of editor state / component configuration / serialized data and tell you, "oh, this gameObject's Vector3 pos value is wrong".
Not revolutionary on its own, but a great feature, and there are more.
Thanks a bunch for the insights and feedback!
1. If you're willing to share your Unity MCP project upgrades, I'd love to check it out and perhaps merge into our project. I couldn't find it in your Github.
2. With "Manus for Unity" do you mean an AI tool that does tasks for you in the background? like Codex or Cursor Background Tasks?
2. We've got a couple of companies similar to those you've mentioned using the Coplay product, but they mainly use the Record & Replay feature for liveops pipelines. https://youtu.be/Ia6o4ylI41I
Something feels a little off about calling it an "open source repo" rather than an "open source project".
Maybe it's because the project is MIT licensed, which means there is no point in buying it other than acquiring the original repo
They mayhaps didn't drill that point to their investors
> The old URL redirects to the new one, so in theory existing posts/backlinks keep working. We also agreed the original creator wouldn’t reuse the “unity-mcp” repo name under his GitHub profile, which could break redirects.
Why?
A lot of times I faced with page 404 when clicked GitHub links that have been moved.
Isn't it good idea to do it like that - Move repo to new org (to move stats and activity) - Create repo with the same name that are fork of a target repo - Update readme to explain repo was moved - Archive the repo to place a warning on top of the repo
This way make users have to click link in original github repo, to go on your repo.
So it would be a problem if you need to show a numbers and you need to fake activity. But if you don't need fake activity, it is not a problem, because a real people who really looking for solution will be able to click one more link.
On the other hand, this way ensure that whole content will be available by indexed links.
How to prevent 404 and why people still faces with it on GitHub?
I've always seen the redirect when the repo is moved. The GitHub docs mention the redirect as well. Are you sure you're not seeing another scenario like a fork and the original repo is deleted?
Seems like they could’ve avoided a lot of the failure with a normal sponsorship.
What they attempted here seems akin to a “mega-sponsorship” with more baggage than they were prepares for.
I don’t think taking over/contributing to an OSS project is a bad marketing move at all, but typically you’d contribute the company’s resources and expertise to make it worth it.
Hiring the project lead is definitely a good step, but the timing feels off. Something that would feel more natural to me:
Sponsorship -> Hire the guy -> Transfer branding
All with some time in between.
They way it feels less like a hostile takeover, which users have been trained to quickly jump ship when happening.
My understanding of what this article does not say aloud: it seems that this startup wants to get "free exposure"* by being the owner of the open source repo and potentially good reputation from media coverage. It's not unreasonable, and I don't want to comment on whether those specific motivations are "good" or "bad", but do want to point out obvious issues:
> we like open source and want Unity MCP to stay relevant and open source indefinitely.
It goes both ways. What happens if your startup goes under, which has a 99% probability? By that time, the project roadmap and governance is completely under your company's control. How/if are you going to "return" the project to open source community, and would it still matter then?
> SEO of the repo gets reset
To be honest it is not completely unreasonable, and that is indeed one more thing to worry if it completely depends on another company's whim. Also, SEO is rarely a thing people talk about when maintaining a project, and this is the first time I see "SEO" and OSS appearing in the same sentence.
> It's possible that nobody cares when tiny companies acquire fairly popular OSS repos. Our social posts barely moved the needle.
What do you expect? If I have to guess, there is not a ton of overlap of (heavy) social media users and open source contributors, and even less so for these projects that focus on specific areas.
* Not really free, there is a one-time purchase fee, apparently.
The SEO bullet is inaccurate. You will temporarily lose position as the new URL is consumed and the new URL is re-associated with the old. It takes time.
It seems like you wanted a short term boost from it, but you're most likely to get a long term latent boost from it.
Try integrating it more deeply and persistently into your product and brand if you haven't, interacting with the mcp userbase consistently and meticulously.
For me the Google results are again at #1.
Isn't it just a temporary thing that search engines rank you down but you quickly regain popularity as soon people link the new one and they notice traffic?
In the old days using 301 permanent redirect to carry the mojo to the new domain was SEO 101.
I don't know these days ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hey, at least you got the most important bit right ;)
> One thing we did get right: maintainer buy-in. The repo had more than just the creator maintaining it, so we had real conversations and planning sessions with maintainers before making changes. We were transparent, kept them in the loop, and appreciated the support.
I guess that SEO is also important somewhat. But if the product itself is good, which I assume it is as you bought it, then that should fix itself over time. Even more so because the repo is still "just a baby" considering the first commit was in March of this year. So by the end of the year you should be right back on track, probably sooner as you aren't starting from scratch.
I mean, I guess the big lesson is to not buy a open source repository hoping to use it for marketing. Which, seems like common sense to me if I am being honest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> One thing we did get right: maintainer buy-in. The repo had more than just the creator maintaining it, so we had real conversations and planning sessions with maintainers before making changes. We were transparent, kept them in the loop, and appreciated the support.
"Maintainer buy-in" sounds kind of misleading, unless they actually paid the other maintainers too, and I do not get the impression from that point that they did.
Eh, that is a stretch. Getting "buy-in from X" is pretty commonly understood to mean that you need to get the support from someone.
You need to update the table with HN: 7 upvotes ;)
Why exactly would anyone care about an MIT licensed project being bought? I don't blame Pocket Gamer for realising it was a waste of time putting the article. I sense they simply wanted to free marketing to go with it, but their purchase of the repo is pointless otherwise. An MIT licensed repo is meaningless as a owned product as anyone can and will do as they like with it. It's also a community where you can't get away with pretending you were remotely key in building the software up to that point.
I wonder what ballpark of money they paid for this
Reading this felt like visiting an alien planet. The software is MIT-licensed. All the talk of “buying” it and “ROI”, SEO, etc was just depressing and shows how utterly poisoned the culture around software has become.
While I agree with your reaction, and would feel the same myself, they didn't buy the code, they bought the repo, it's stated quite clearly in my opinion.
Typically I would find this kind of PR stunt irksome, but I don't begrudge the little guy doing what they can to get some attention on their product, and it's an interesting read non the less since I hadn't really considered the logistics of buying an open source repo before.
I suppose a better way to put it, would be to say they bought the stars/links/name, which I have mixed feelings about.
Same. I can't take it seriously. But of course people spending money demand to be taken seriously.
Excuse me, I too have a nothing to sell. Bids starting at 10kEUR plus taxes.