[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Peggy Hoon on licenses
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: RE: Peggy Hoon on licenses
- From: Heather Morrison <hgmorris@sfu.ca>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:28:31 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
BC Electronic Library Network has developed our own Model License (the language may sound familiar as this is based on research including examining other model licenses): http://www.eln.bc.ca/view.php?id=1537 All of our major vendors have signed a version of this license. As Peggy and others have pointed out, part of the problem is vendors not understanding how academic libraries work. For us, there is the added complexity of how library consortia work in general, and how BC ELN works in particular. To streamline the process of how we go about educating vendors who would like to begin to work with BC ELN (or expand offerings), we have developed a web page specifically outlining the process for vendors: http://www.eln.bc.ca/view.php?id=1597 My personal opinion is that scholarly communication is in a process of transition, and that the transition will continue for some time. For this reason, although standard licenses and initiatives like SERU are most helpful and should be pursued, these should be viewed as temporary measures. Any individual organization may have unique needs that would require a unique model license. Also, not all products or vendors are the same. A publisher, for example, can grant blanket rights that may be difficult or impossible for an aggregator whose products contain resources from many different publishers. The rights to full text that we seek may seem strange to a vendor of a citation- only database. The best licensing in existence for scholarly communication, IMHO, is CC licensing, as this simplifies understanding of how materials can be used. CC licenses are used by subscriptions-based as well as open access publishers. Of course, this does not help when we are licensing resources from vendors / publishers who do not use CC licenses. The reason that I bring this up is because all of us who work with vendors at any level can play a useful role in helping them to understand the current and evolving needs of scholarship, so that they can develop practices which will help them to survive and thrive into the future. best, Heather G. Morrison Project Coordinator BC Electronic Library Network
- Prev by Date: "Not amendable"
- Previous by thread: RE: Peggy Hoon on licenses
- Next by thread: Wiley-Blackwell Subject Librarian Survey
- Index(es):