Clarification on SERU proposal

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

I am struggling to understand the following.  Can anyone help?

> > This document, "The SERU Approach to E-Resource Subscriptions:
Framework for Development and Use of SERU," presents a shared set
of understandings to which publishers and libraries can point
when negotiating the sale of electronic content. The framework
offers publishers and libraries a solution to the often
burdensome process of bilateral negotiation of a formal license
agreement by allowing the sale of e-resources without licenses if
both parties feel their perception of risk has been adequately
addressed by current law and developing norms of behavior.

JE:  This is a legal matter, and I am not a lawyer.  My layman's 
understanding is that there is a distinction between a license (a 
form of contract, which in this case is between copyright holders 
and organizations that want to use their material) and the 
codification of that contract, typically in a hardcopy document, 
which is confusingly also called a license.  There is a 
difference, in other words, between the agreement (the license) 
and the codification in the form of a document (the, er, 
license), just as there is a difference between a marriage and a 
marriage certificate.

Is SERU addressing license #1 or license #2?  If #2, as I 
suspect, then calling this the elimination of licenses is 
terrribly confusing, as many people would confuse #2 with #1 and 
thus think there is no binding agreement between the parties 
simply because no document had been signed.

My understanding is that SERU is seeking to reduce administrative 
costs by eliminating paperwork and many aspects of negotiations 
(a worthy goal) and is working to improve the terms of licenses 
for its constituency by pointing to "best practices" (meaning 
good for libraries), also a worthy goal, though whether the 
proposal will have the intended effect is unknown.

Any clarification of this situation would be appreciated.

Joe Esposito