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... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:JSTOR&oldid=485563919 -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>