[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: L'Annee Philologique
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: L'Annee Philologique
- From: "Dave Fisher" <Dave@library.ucsd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:56:03 EDT
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
I'm curious how others (and Les Belles Lettres) would regard the following language as an alternative for their "governing law" clause. This was suggested to me by a well known european publisher with Berlin headquarters that I'm currently negotiating with for a site license. "If any difference arises between the parties on the meaning of this licence or their rights and obligations, it shall first be referred to an independent expert appointed by an agreement of the parties. Any expert so appointed shall act as expert and not as an arbitrator and his decision (which shall be given by him in writing stating the reasons for his decision) shall be final and binding on the parties. Each party shall provide the expert with such information as he may reasonably require for the purpose of his decision. The costs of the expert shall be borne by the parties in such proportions as the expert may determine to be fair and reasonable or, if no determination is made by the expert, by the parties in equal proportions." This closely parallels the language found in the NESLI Draft License on the Liblicense page for National Licensing Initiatives. I discussed this with a colleague at the CDL and we both like it because it is jurisdiction neutral, keeps both parties out of the courts and provides a fair mechanism to both sides for resolving differences. Dave Fisher UCSD Libraries
- Prev by Date: Re: Licensing agreement and extension sites
- Next by Date: Re: Journal usage statistics
- Prev by thread: Re: L'Annee Philologique
- Next by thread: re: online discussion on 'bundled' subscriptions of journals for
- Index(es):