[quote=“dplucinski, post:3, topic:23696”]
That’s what my question mostly is. Their projects don’t generate any revenue directly, but may help generate revenue. For example: storage racks and carts for their factories.
[/quote]Please reread Dan’s very well presented comments - it seems quite straightforward to me…
Surely it’s academic whether or not a commercial-company’s project that has been done with the assistance of SketchUp Make actually ‘makes money’.
If that project is intended to give that commercial-company a ‘financial advantage’ [of any kind], then it’s ‘commercial use’, and therefore it must be done using Pro.
Designing things like racks or carts ‘in-house’ using Make - which would otherwise have to have been designed by an external designer [using Pro] or alternatively bought-in ready-made from another company [again using Pro somewhere in their supply chain] - gives the commercial-company a financial benefit [ultimately to the detriment of Trimble in lost license fees].
The commercial-company has not paid for something that otherwise they would have paid for [albeit indirectly accrued into the design or supply costs of those objects].
IMHO I think it would be difficult to contrive a scenario where a commercial-company could ever justify the use of Make in-house [or knowing connive with external suppliers to receive goods or services that involved using Make in any way].
Anything that commercial-company does with Make could always be construed as giving them some sort of commercial advantage.
For example, the company is designing then manufacturing a new desk for the local orphanage and then freely donating it to them - they’llstill get a commercial advantage from using Make - because they have not then employed someone who has Pro to do that design work etc.
It is irrelevant that by giving away this desk they perhaps ‘lost $100’ [ignoring tax-breaks!].
They simply ‘lost’ less by using Make inappropriately.
They shouldn’t steal the desk’s plywood from Home Depot, and neither should they ‘steal’ SketchUp.
An alternative scenario is a little grayer…
You are not an employee of the company, but a private individual using Make for non-commercial use at home.
You have freely designed this orphanage-desk using Make.
You convince the commercial-company’s CEO to use your Make based design, for the orphanage.
You freely give them that design.
They make the desk and then they donate it to the orphanage [hopefully recognizing your contribution].
They have ‘lost $100’, and you have not gained anything in this process except some adulation…
But was there any financial advantage gained by the three participants ?
You gained nothing.
The commercial-company actually made a loss in giving away the desk.
The orphanage gained a desk that it would otherwise have had to pay for.
So the only actual financial beneficiary is the orphanage - and they are a non-profit making organization [doh!]
It the alternative scenario above, it would have been notably different if the commercial-company had actually appointed you to do the design - even for free - because then they would have received a financial benefit from your work using Make, which they shouldn’t have taken [at least knowingly].
Although as a ‘[sub]contractor’ your relationship is somewhat different than it you were their ‘employee’.
Obviously had they actually paid you [in money or in kind] to do the design work [as a ‘contractor’] the situation is aggravated - you have inappropriately used Make commercially and they have [perhaps] knowing colluded in this.
Had you been their ‘employee’ to do this then - even if the Make were your own and not theirs - then I think they are liable for letting it be used in-house either way: and additionally you are personally liable if you ‘own’ that Make and have used it commercially in any way…
Diatribe now closed.