"Not amendable"

["Schwartz, Judy" <Schwartzj@trocaire.edu>]

Well, you could always cross it off and send it back; then see 
what happens.  This week, a vendor sent a licensing for us to 
stream their content; there was a very offending paragraph within 
the license. I emailed the vendor and said that no other vendor 
requires access to our CMS to see how we are using the product, 
and if  we had to do that, we wouldn't - it was a deal breaker.

Looks like it was 'boiler-plate' verbiage; the rep said she 
didn't know it was there, and the part about temporary access - 
well, they understand not everyone can do that.  I could cross 
off the part or she would send a new one; I opted for the latter.

More about licensing information here, recommended from a webinar 
including Paul Wrynn: http://nnlm.gov/mar/rsdd/elicense.html; 
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/dbckfrm1.htm

Judy

Judith K Schwartz, MLS
Director of Library Services
Trocaire College - the Mercy College of WNY
360 Choate Ave
Buffalo NY 14220-2094
Buffalo, NY

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:57 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Peggy Hoon on licenses


On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Panyarak Ngamsritragul wrote:
> I have been involving library services for 2 years only.  What I
> have noticed so far about the practice here is the vendor sent
> the license to us and request us to sign the license.  Recently
> we purchase a Law database and were also sent a license.  I
> reviewed the license terms and ask them to amend only a
> definition so that it will cover what we are expecting.  The
> response from the dealer(s) is "It is a standard license used
> everywhere in the world and is amendable".  I insisted that the

I forgot to type a "not" here...  The last line should read:

everywhere in the world and is not amendable". I insisted that the

Sorry for the mistake.

Panyarak Ngamsritragul
Prince of Songkla University (Thailand)