Model Licenses Comments

[Ann Okerson <aokerson@pantheon.yale.edu>]

Hans Geleijnse sends the following comments about the subscription
agencies' model licenses developed by John Cox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Hans Geleijnse" <Hans.Geleijnse@kub.nl>
Organization: Tilburg University
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:04:31 MET

Recently information was posted on this list with respect to the model
licenses prepared by John Cox in cooperation with the subscription agents.
I would like to give some initial comments on these models.

First of all, I think that it is good to have such an initiative because
it could make our licensing life easier. These Cox'models have some
important positive aspects but are certainly not covering all issues and
giving the right answers.

1.Various articles contain different options. An example is the article
with respect to electronic ILL based on electronic files.  Another example
is the issue of non-cancellation or rather the attempts of publishers to
make 3-year agreements based on the continuation of a spending level that
will follow price increases. All these issues are set in a multiple choice
mode and require full attention of library consortia.

2.The need to make progress with the integration of information from
different sources, the distinction between data and applications, the need
to have capabilities for reference linking etc.are not covered in these
models.

3.I'm rather worried about clause 2.3 in relation to clause 10.1.
According to clause 2.3 the library will not be granted perpetual access
if:

a.it breaches the license because it has not paid the fee. If, 
according to clause 10.1.1., the library misses for instance the 
third instalment, the library will punished and not granted perpetual 
access, not even for the material it paid for.

b.it commits a material breach.  It is very arbitrary what qualifies as a
material breach. Is it fair to say that the "punishment" will be that
perpetual access will not be granted anymore. I suppose a court decision
will be needed to decide what will qualify as a material breach with this
enormous impact.

c.if the publisher becomes insolvent or is taken over by another
publisher. In our world this happens quite often. In the case of clause
10.1.3.  the library will be punished because of an external cause. This
is absolutely not acceptable.

What do others think?

    
Hans Geleijnse
University Librarian
Tilburg University
The Netherlands
Hans.Geleijnse@kub.nl
Tel. +13.4662146
Fax  +13.4663370