I have blogged my personal thoughts. http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/07/20/the-ethics-of-%E2%80%9Cstealing%E2%80%9D-scientific-articles-and-civil-disobedience/
If (and I am not sure whether it is till we have more info - perhaps in the trial) this is an act of civil disobedience - there can be merit in it. If it is Guerilla OA (as I believe he earlier indulged in) then I think that is outside the OKF's remit and practice. The OKF is not a lobbying organization and should also not support deliberate law breaking at this time. We are - as we are reminded at OKCon's and elsewhere - in the middle of a major battle for our future information world. What I think the OKF does best is to define where we want to be. There are certainly different ways of getting there. At present I think OKF benefits from having a community where a number of other players (government particularly, but also early Open adopters in the publishing community, such as BMC's adoption of the Panton Principles). This does not mean that we cannot personally adopt a wide range of views about Swartz, but I don't think this maps onto OKF activities. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
