This videoconference at the Gutman Conference Center was attended by twenty-six librarians from Harvard and MIT. The session consisted of two broadcast segments, a pre- and post-conference discussion, and a license review activity. A videotape of the session will be available; contact OIS for more information. Copies of the handouts may be requested from Patti Fucci in OIS (5-3724).

1. Introductory Discussion

In the brief period before the presentation, participants were asked to identify licensing issues of current concern. Two were mentioned:

• The definition of "site" – some vendors are defining sites and pricing site-wide licenses in terms of geographic diffusion (i.e. the number of municipalities in which an institution is located) and/or network architecture (e.g. the number of Class B and/or Class C networks). Both of these definitions present particular problems for Harvard.
  
• Who is the licensee? – if an individual library at Harvard signs a license, is the licensee Harvard University (i.e. "The President and Fellows of Harvard College"), or the individual library or faculty that signed the license?

 

2. Licensing Activity

During the break, participants reviewed a mock license to identify problematic areas and suggest changes. Examples of issues and desired modifications included:

• Site defined as "Single organization" – this terminology did not seem to satisfactorily define the site. Deleting the clause "at a single location" was recommended to forestall an interpretation that would preclude multiple buildings and remote access.
  

Authorized Users

• One suggestion: seek a definition from an authoritative entity such as the organization’s Human Resources department.
• Language should explicitly allow walk-in users.
• ‘Students, faculty and staff’ should not have restrictive qualifiers such as ‘full-time,’ ‘permanent,’ etc.
• IP address – if used, make sure this is plural to allow for multiple ip addresses and/or domains


• Restricting to authorized users
• Licensee should only have to use ‘reasonable effort’ to restrict – make sure this language is specified
• Don’t accept restriction to ‘on-site’ use, make sure remote access is possible
  

Permitted Uses

• To avoid limiting use to only the examples given, include language such as "including but not limited to"
• Make sure use limits do not preclude the sharing of research results outside the University as mandated by University research guidelines
• Explicitly include reference to ‘fair use’

 

3. Post-Workshop Discussion

The group was invited to identify additional major issues related to licensing of electronic information and suggest ways in which we might go about addressing them. Concerns mentioned included:

Performance Warranties

• When information is accessed via an external provider, performance is no longer under local control. The information provider should be asked to assume specific performance obligations in the license.
Local vs. Consortial Licensing

• May entail loss of control over contract provisions
• Problematic timeframes for decision-making – decisions often must be made more quickly than institution can accomplish; conversely. cooperative decisions may slow things down when institution is ready to move forward
  

Educating and Informing Staff and End-Users about Usage Provisions

• All agreed that this was an important area to work on. Librarians need to know who may use a given resource, whether it can be used to answer reference questions for outside users, whether it may be used for ILL, etc. Colleagues from MIT shared their strategies for this with us. MIT scans in copies of all licenses for access by library staff, and summarizes key provisions for end-users via a license icon beside each resource when applicable. It was noted that this activity is very labor-intensive and difficult to keep up with.

In summary, workshop participants commented favorably on the usefulness of the videoconference format and the activity / discussion components.