On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 07:55 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > Production means you are benefiting from running server in any form. > Making money is only one form of benefit. The rest are hard to list > without knowing what exactly you do but the general approach in court > would be: you will not be running server and not using it for something. > Apart from testing that some software builds on that you can not use that > server for anything else. And it is not a coincidence that they list > explicitly what you can use it for. Because using it for anything else > will be illegal (which will be established in court, but I have to mention > I am not a lawyer). Neither am I a lawyer. Unless the term 'production' is clearly defined in the license, then the popular and widely used meaning of 'production' would constitute the criteria. It is not for users to define what Red Hat Inc's license implies - that is solely a matter for Read Hat to make ***before*** Red Hat donates its software or unlocks its software for use. Legally, Red Hat could not retrospectively impose any definition of 'production' or introduce licensing or usage terms. It will not be 'illegal' because it is not a criminal offence unless a law exists forbidding that action. I think that 'exceeding' the terms of the license would not make a criminal offence. Criminal = public law Non-criminal = private law The best Red Hat could do is to sue users for Red Hat's 'lost' (just think of the world-wide damaging publicity) and that will mean Red Hat would have to prove to the civil standard of evidence the monetary amount of that loss. As the alleged 'loss' may occur outside the US of A, Red Hat would have to sue in the legal jurisdiction where that matter occurred. In England, the Small Claims Courts determines cases up to GBP 10,000 ***and*** the costs of lawyers, I verily believe, are neither awarded nor recoverable. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. England's place is in the European Union.