On Tuesday 16 December 2003 06:47 am, Thorbjörn Jemander wrote:
> I think you are misunderstanding the phrase "without fee". It should be
> interpreted as
> "one does not have to pay the originator the right to use, copy, modify
> etc",
> not as "you cannot charge for this or derivative work".

Hmm ...  I see your point.  I think you're correct - the "without fee" text is 
in the clause *granting* permissions, not the clause *restricting* those 
permissions.

> There are several companies (among them one that I've worked for) that
> uses NET-SNMP in commerical
> products. 

Yeah, I know that there are quite a few, but all that means is that our 
company will have lots of co-defendants in the lawsuit when CMU wants to stop 
profitteering :-)  Or worse yet, when somebody starts a flamefest-and-boycott 
on Slashdot :-)

> If the latter interpretation were to be correct, the license
> would not have been compatible with DFSG
> (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines) or OSD
> (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php), and then would not
> Debian or other free software projects wanted to distribute NET-SNMP.

That's an excellent point, thank you.
-- 
Ross A. Patterson
Chief Technology Officer
CatchFIRE Systems, Inc.
5885 Trinity Parkway, Suite 220
Centreville, VA  20120
(703) 563-4164