On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@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.

Actually, they did...


John Vandenberg

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to