[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: concepts of perpetuity
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: concepts of perpetuity
- From: <bill@multi-science.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:46:15 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
It has to be 'no'. A licence is in effect a contract and, as with a contract, the terms can't be changed unless both parties agree to it. Bill Hughes Multi-Science Publishing > __________________ > > Warren Holder wrote: > > Is this a trick question? In my mind, the answer to your last question > is a simple no. > > Warren Holder > Electronic Resources Co-ordinator > University of Toronto Libraries > Toronto, Ontario CANADA M5S 1A5 > warren.holder@utoronto.ca > www.library.utoronto.ca/its/warren.html > >> Okerson, Ann wrote: >> >> Thanks to Bill and to Sally for useful comments. However, my >> inquiry (see below) wasn't about promising perpetual access. >> >> It was about our having purchased, with a signed contractual >> agreement, ongoing access *without further charges* -- and >> now a couple of years later, the publishing company is asking >> for a fee even though our signed license is still in effect. >> >> That's what my message was about (adding charges to a >> supposedly fully paid contract) rather than reneging on >> long-term access -- anyone out there have thoughts about >> this? If we paid an agreed upon price which required no >> further fee, should we now pay a fee? >> >> Thank you, Ann Okerson >> ____________________________________________________________________ >> >> As readers may be aware, Sage Publishers bought CQ (Congressional >> Quarterly) Press back in early June. Our library recently >> received correspondence from CQ Press informing us that an annual >> hosting fee for perpetual-access backfiles was being introduced, >> in order to "support the highest quality standards for >> institutional access to our perpetual access resources." >> >> Though the requested fee is moderate, the introduction of this >> fee is contrary to the language in our existing license with CQ >> Press (dated October 2005), which, in the section on the >> "Perpetual Electronic Ownership Rights Option" (Section XIV), >> states that "Licensee shall be billed a one-time fee for the >> ownership option." (We are currently also paying an annual >> subscription fee for electronic access.) There is language to >> the effect that provisions shall survive any termination of this >> agreement. In any case, we checked with CQ Press and confirmed >> that the existing license remains in force. >> >> Does the publisher have a contractual obligation to us? Under >> what conditions might such an obligation be changed? We welcome >> your thoughts. >> >> Thank you, Ann Okerson/Yale Library
- Prev by Date: Re: Update from Multi-Science Publishing
- Next by Date: Re: MPS and PLoS Sign Agreement
- Previous by thread: RE: concepts of perpetuity
- Next by thread: RE: concepts of perpetuity
- Index(es):