ACQNET: Confidentiality clause is back in at _Nature_

From: Eleanor Cook <cookei_at_appstate.edu> Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:43:10 -0400 To: acqnet-l_at_listproc.appstate.edu

Date:  Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:10:27 -0700
From:  Rick Anderson (U. of NV-Reno) <rickand_at_unr.edu>
Subject:  Confidentiality clause is back in at _Nature_

(Apologies for cross-posting)

Some readers of this list might recall recent discussion 
of a newly revised clause in _Nature_'s license agreement, 
one which now requires that the library keep both the 
license terms and the price confidential.
When I objected (strenuously) to this license provision 
to my sales rep -- and mentioned the problem on-list -- I 
was told that the pricing confidentiality language was 
going to be taken out and that pricing
information was going to be posted publicly.  Now the 
word from _Nature_ is that the pricing confidentiality 
language is staying in after all,
even though it is apparently still going to be posted 
publicly (if you can figure that one out, let me know).

If this bothers you, you may want to register your 
displeasure with the company.  When I did so, I was told 
that "it's the lawyers."  I've asked
to speak with one of the lawyers.  We'll see whether 
that happens.

FYI,
Rick Anderson

----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand_at_unr.edu 

--------------------------------------------------------------
For information about ACQNET's editorial policies,
how to subscribe/unsubscribe, and access to Archives, see:

 http://www.acqweb.org

--------------------------------------------------------------