Re: Nature Letter

[Victoria.Mitchell@directory.reed.edu (Victoria Mitchell)]

Most of the 'flaws' below seem to me to be simply asking the licensee to
comply with copyright laws, and hence perfectly reasonable.  The only
thing that is risky for the licensee is warranting that you will not
permit anybody else to do any of these things.  You'd probably want to
change that language.

-Victoria Mitchell
Reed College

--- Peggy Hoon wrote:

The Nature license has some other rather significant flaws besides the
access and pricing being objected to on this list.  Is there anyone out
there who is actually willing to agree to and thinks they will be able to
strictly comply with

Usage Restrictions:

Licensee WARRANTS that it will not, NOR WILL IT license or PERMIT OTHERS
TO, directly or indirectly, without the Licensor's prior written
permission

-sell, distribute, license, rent or otherwise exploit the Licensed
material, or any element of it, for any commercial purpose;

- make the Licensed Material, or any element of it, available by any means
to persons other than Authorized Users; 

- make the Licensed Material, or any element of it, available on, or by,
electronic bulletin boards, news groups, Web sites, FTP or any other means
of posting or transmitting material on the Internet, an on-line service or
wide area network;

- remove or obscure the Licensor's copyright notice from the Licensed
Material including hard copy print-outs; 

- Use the Licensed Material to create any derivative work product or
service, or merge the Licensed material with any other product, database,
or service;

- Alter, amend, modify, translate, or change the Licensed Material;

- [MY FAVORITE] Undertake any activity which may have a damaging effect on
the Licensor'ss ability to achieve revenue through selling and marketing
the Licensed Material; - Etc.
--- end of quote ---