[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Double Licenses

From: rishpal@nlb.gov.sg
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: "Double" Licenses

Ann Okerson raises a valid point which we are also grappling with here at
the National Library Board of Singapore.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the two licences are necessarily
incompatible. I suspect it has more to do with the details
(breadth,depth,scope, and other details of the individual licensing
agreements) that the institution signs or is willing to sign with the
provider, and also the degree to which the institution is willing to
accept blanket responsibility for what the reader does with or how he uses
the information within the provider's prescribed guidelines. This would be
particularly true of business information services.

Rishpal Singh SIDHU/PS/NLB

Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu> on 20/01/99 21:16:48

Please respond to liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

To:   liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
cc:    (bcc: Rishpal Singh SIDHU/PS/NLB)
Subject:  "Double" Licenses

Already this year I've seen two electronic information "deals" that
require two levels of license.  That is, the institution (library)
negotiates and signs a license with the provider AND then once the reader
goes to the site to retrieve the information, he or she is asked to
"click" to agree to a set of terms and conditions.  I.e., two license
agreements are in play: one with the institution and one with each
individual reader. Perhaps this has been happening to us all along, and
I've only noticed this because of reading two such licenses within a few
days.  The "click" is NOT the same as "dear reader, here you are and
here are our working rules" -- rather, it is an attempt to create a
legal agreement between the provider and the individual.

In each case, the terms are reasonable enough, but I question that the
readers fully understand the kinds of liabilities that they are accepting
by clicking.  And, as we have heard/discussed ad nauseum, "click" licenses
are also problematic in that there is no possibility for the reader to
query or negotiate with a form on the web.

In any case, it seems to me that the information provider's deal needs to
be either with the INSTITUTION, who negotiates and accepts all the
overarching responsibility for compliance with the license, OR with the
READER, leaving the institution out of the relationship.  There is an
incompatibility between asking for both.

Comments please from you publishers, librarians, and lawyers out there?

Ann Okerson
Associate University Librarian
Yale University