Thanks for your time Thomas. In my case I will not be working on their computers, at most I will connect via remote control to see any issues they have with the test version and to transfer files, but no development will be done this way.

I'll see if I can find a relevant MS email address to send my "query" to as you suggest (Craig, if you have anyone's email address, that might be helpful). Really doubt I'll get any response, but I'll word it that if I get no response then I assume I'm OK.

Thanks again

>>Viv & Craig,
>>
>>now you see why I am unsure as to whether or not I can use it.
>>
>>My personal company does not make more than US$1M annually (assuming the money discussed is US of course). I have no idea what the turnover of the company who owns the source code is and I really doubt they'd let me know.
>
>Frank,
>
>IMO as long as you do not work on the premises and inside the network of the company owning the source and perhaps being enterprise class, it should be all right (at least one way to interpret "in organizations", consultants on body lease cannot use CE), but you could/should fire a question describing the dissonance between exact wording of description and example #2 up to MS - word it in a way that you assume it is alright unless they answer in negative and explain in detail.
>
>If you are allowed direct access into their network as a user, in todays telecommuter work style, I would make certain that the computer or at least the VM given access on your computer to their net is NOT the one where you install CE. Describe in detail that the "machine" housing CE is not connected logically to the network of your customer in the question mentioned above ;-))
>
>Use an old machine to access their network but keep it separated from your shiny new dev machine with CE, which is owned by limited liability company ;-)
>When I was on body lease for a long stretch, I had an old clunker on premise, worked on laptop which I often brought along or I connected a small removable disk drive if on a specific day there was no need for computing power...
>
>Checked the german version of the legalese: from the "organization" angle you would be all right here, but here in the german version the emphasis of "own" apps found only for the single developer in US version case is carried over into organizations - probably to hit more consultants working at their place on "foreign" code ;-))
>
>"Trifft nichts des vorstehend Genannten zu und es handelt sich bei Ihnen auch nicht um ein Unternehmen (Definition siehe unten), können bis zu fünf Ihrer Nutzer die Software gleichzeitig nutzen, um Ihre Anwendungen zu entwickeln und zu testen.
>Wenn es sich bei Ihnen um ein Unternehmen handelt, sind Ihre Mitarbeiter und Vertragspartner nur für die oben beschriebenen Open Source- und Ausbildungszwecke berechtigt, die Software zum Entwickeln oder Testen Ihrer Anwendungen zu nutzen. Ein „Unternehmen“ ist eine Organisation und deren verbundene Unternehmen, die zusammen entweder (a) mehr als 250 PC-Nutzer aufweisen oder (b) mehr als eine Millionen US-Dollar (oder einen gleichwertigen Betrag in anderer Währung) an Jahreseinnahmen verzeichnen, und „verbundene Unternehmen“ sind solche juristischen Personen, die eine Organisation (durch Mehrheitseigentum) kontrollieren, von einer Organisation kontrolliert werden oder mit einer Organisation unter gemeinsamer Kontrolle stehen."
>
>All in all I would prefer the clear wording of the english version:
>"For all other usage scenarios: In non-enterprise organizations up to 5 users can use Visual Studio Community."
>and take the enterprize definition from the german version, as control via majority of shares is described, which is not the case for your company and the customer ;-))
>
>fair warning: IANAL! plus Google translate does a fair job on the german legalese
>
>regds
>
>thomas
>
>
>>
>>:(
>>
>>
>>>The converse of the below example would be where the contracting company is NOT an 'enterprise organisation' - in which case it would imply that CE could be used ?
>>>
>>>But your right - don't know about complex but it's certainly not clear :-{
>>>
>>>>That's not how a Microsoft employee explained it to me. The way I read this, if you are a contractor, then you probably cannot use Community Edition. As usual, Microsoft licensing is way too complex.
>>>>
>>>>>Not sure - seems it may depend on the basis on which the software is supplied ? Snip from the link I posted:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Example 2: A Fortune 500 firm has outsourced the development of its store-locator mobile application to a small agency. The application is not an open source project. The agency has 5 employees working on the project and would like to use Visual Studio Community 2013. Since the agency is a contractor developing this application for the Fortune 500 firm, and since the application is not an open source project, the agency cannot use Visual Studio Community 2013 for developing and testing the application. "
>>>>>
>>>>>>His company. Who you supply it to has no bearing on this license.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hmm. Not sure who the 'Organisation' would be - Frank's company or the company he is supplying to.