On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk
<lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks
for sharing. However, the
WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
overwhelming consensus.
I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.
Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming
consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started
litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF
and Wikimedia movement.
Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it
was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.
Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as
it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.