This kind of thing has come up before and I think Renderosity needs to do something to straighten this stuff out. I think this vendor is shooting themselves in the foot for another reason...their terms are probably unenforcable. They may also be exposing Renderosity to liability for deceptive advertising. IMHO: 1. If a product is sold with a document titled "license" and another one titled "read me", the one titled "license" will be presumed to be the legally binding one in any court of law. 2. When that license states "the Artist may only revoke this license, if it is shown that a Buyer has previously violated the terms and conditions above," any unilateral amendments to that license would be null and void as an attempt to revoke the license without the prerequisite license violation by the buyer. This would be true even if the amendment comes in a "read me" file bundled with the product and license when it is first obtained (essentially, revoking the license in advance of sale). Indeed, it may be seen as intentionally deceptive to provide a license at the time of purchase but "slip in" another document that alters it. The license could have, and should have, contained all pertainent and prevailing terms of use in effect at the time of sale. 3. The marketplace makes numerous and clear promises that that all products sold include the standard license and allow commercial usage. People rely on those statements when making purchases, and it may be considered deceptive or fraudulent if offered products do not comply with those advertised promises. But that's just my opinion.