RedHat isn't obliged to pay Linus or RMS because the license they distributed their work under does not require it. Making or not making money has nothing to do

RedHat isn't obliged to pay Linus or RMS because the license they distributed their work under does not require it. Making or not making money has nothing to do with it. If Oracle distributed their work under a license that permitted use by Google this is evidence of permission not to pay them, not evidence that monetary 'loss' has not occurred. Some claims are treated less harshly if it was done without a profit motive. This appears to be something that Google is trying to benefit from. However the claim that they will make no profit from the success of Android is pretty outrageous. If that was true, why did they bother? Outrageous claims are pretty standard practice of course, but this one is still laughable. And since this is a civil case proof will most likely be accepted on the balance of the probabilities rather than a tougher standard. (In this case I'm no supporter of Oracle, just to be clear.)