RE: Confidentiality language and the netLibrary license

["Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>]

In support of Marilyn's point below:

> To begin with, public institutions such as public libraries or libraries
> associated with public universities may be required by law to delete the
> confidentiality clause or, barring that, to modify it with the qualifier,
> "to the extent possible".  You obviously know whether this is applicable
> in your case.  But I think this loophole for libraries misses the point.

I agree completely.  In practical terms, I could take comfort in the fact
that state law will trump the contract in that the contract would probably
count as a public document (though even state law usually allows certain
documents, such as those that contain passwords, to remain secret).

However, the question from a deeper standpoint is this: what if state law
changed tomorrow?  I'm not comfortable agreeing to an unreasonable term
simply because our current legal situation protects us from its
implications.  In general I'm more of a pragmatist than a philosopher, but
I have a real philosophical problem with that approach.

-------------
Rick Anderson
Director of Resource Acquisition
The University Libraries
University of Nevada, Reno          "It takes a pretty good
1664 No. Virginia St.                meeting to be better
Reno, NV  89557                      than no meeting at all."
PH  (775) 784-6500 x273                -- Boyd K. Packer
FX  (775) 784-1328
rickand@unr.edu