 |
 |
>Edward M. Corrado wrote: >> This will be interesting to see how it works out. From what I read, it >> looks like the case that Thomson has is based on, or at least strongly >> enhanced by, the EULA. Thus, the legal questions may end up being 1) is >> "freeing" data from a proprietary file format aviolation of >> copyright/patent/ etc.? and if not, 2) can you sign that away by >> agreeing to an EULA? >Michael B. Klein wrote: >Second, this isn't a EULA in the sense of "By opening this package, you >agree..." or "By clicking this, you agree..." Those kinds of contracts are >questionable. It's an actual contract granting GMU a site license for the >Endnote software, negotiated by Thomson and GMU and agreed to in writing on >both sides. I guess I wonder whether the Zotero developers at the Center for History and New Media were aware of the existence, much less the terms, of the Endnote software contract. If they were aware of the terms and decided to do the reverse-engineering anyway, the legal consequences will be much worse. My experience with large institutions, however, suggests that this was probably a decision made in ignorance of the contract. Danielle Cunniff Plumer, Coordinator Texas Heritage Digitization Initiative Texas State Library and Archives Commission 512.463.5852 (phone) / 512.936.2306 (fax) [log in to unmask]