Previous by Date Index by Date
Threaded Index
Next by Date

Previous by Thread Next by Thread

Nondisclosure, continued

To pick up on our pre-Thanksgiving "nondisclosure" thread, two things:

1.  None of the sample licenses provided by publishers for the Liblicense
Web site ( includes
a non-disclosure clause.  That's one of numerous reasons these licenses
are reproduced ... they are user- and library-friendly in a number of
important ways.  Publishers such as Academic, Chadwyck-Healey, JSTOR, and
a number of others do not require the terms of the contract to be kept
confidential.  They are happy to make available the normal terms under
which they do business with library customers.

2. Which leads to a second matter:  Bernie Sloan and Peter Graham both
asked that we hear on this list from electronic information suppliers on
this matter. Why do some insist on non-disclosure of any/all terms of an
electronic content license, while others treat the terms as ones that
should be disclosed?

Can we hear from some of the publishers and vendors on this list, from
both the disclosure and non-disclosure camps, so we library-consumers can
understand this topic better?  Are there some kinds of information about a
content license that should in fact be kept confidential?  Are some kinds
of *publications* more in need of non-disclosure clauses than others? Some
kinds of *contracts* (i.e., consortial?) Would those of you who require
non-disclosure be satisfied if only price were not disclosed?  Is
non-disclosure appropriate for educational customers or should it apply
only to commercial-to-commercial arrangements?

Thank you, dear readers, for whatever light you can shed on this matter.

Ann Okerson
Associate University Librarian/Collections
© 1996, 1997 Yale University Library
Please read our Disclaimer
E-mail us with feedback