From: David Shumaker <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:19:00 -0400
I'm glad you raised this question. I'm also surprised that vendors are
still raising this tired old model. It was outmoded 20 years ago. I
was doing license negotiations with vendors on behalf of a corporation
with dozens of "sites" ranging in headcount from a couple thousand
down to a couple individuals ... and then there were teleworkers not
tethered to any "site", and mobile workers. I would see vendor reps'
eyes light up when they learned about the number of "sites" -- until I
informed them that we would not do licenses based on site location.
Content buyers need to push back hard against the site-based license
model. Other models are available.
From: "Sweeney, Maurine" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:59:27 +0000
I’m curious how other libraries are dealing with ‘authorized sites’ as
different institutions are partnering in new ways. For example, we
are an academic health sciences library for a university with
educational, research and clinical components, including two hospitals
staffed in part by University faculty. We have acquired and built new
clinics and in the near future will be partnering with another
hospital system in a joint facility. All of the new clinics share the
same administrative structure and are part of the University. All of
the ‘sites’ use the same IP range. It seems to me as though the
‘authorized sites’ concept is becoming an outmoded way of thinking
about organizations but I am interested to hear what others have to
say and how you handle it with your licenses.