Sources are: emails between myself, core, and the FreeBSD Foundation. I'm not providing those. A phone call with the FreeBSD Foundation, which I did not record and will not provide.
I could mention the names of the people I spoke with in FreeBSD, but why? I could provide the tweets of the guy I spoke about, but to what end?
I'm not going to name names. People can find a way to dig it all up if they really want to, but I don't want this to turn into a "this person is terrible" type thing. It's not about him, and I don't want a mob going after him or any individuals inside FreeBSD. That wouldn't be right, and it would detract from the point in writing about this at all.
Instead, I hope people talk about the issues of harassment and legal shadiness regarding trademark claims.
To provide credit to your claims, otherwise what you are doing is defamatory.
>Sources are: emails between myself, core, and the FreeBSD Foundation. I'm not providing those. A phone call with the FreeBSD Foundation, which I did not record and will not provide.
Sadly, none of that is verifiable from an outsider perspective.
>Instead, I hope people talk about the issues of harassment and legal shadiness regarding trademark claims.
This is the only thing I can claim to have an educated opinion on. Any entity who owns a trademark has the rights to ask you to stop representing their likeness. By using "freebsd" in your name and actively participating in politics surrounding the open source/FreeBSD community, you are representing their likeness and in this case you are not protected by fair use.
For example, I can't make a twitter called TacoBellGuy and post about food related politics. If Taco Bell got upset with me, I'd have to change my name. Very clear cut.
If don't feel that disallowing personal thinking is good for society.
I also feel that it is possible for people to agree on some topics while disagree on others. Guilt by association should not be the measure we use to judge people. I'd say it is very unlikely that the person who "attacked" Harper also supports the "legalize rape" comment from RooshV.
In my opinion, attempting to draw a connection between RooshV's legalize rape comment and the person the article is about is a slanderous tactic to automatically make him "the enemy" with no evidence. This seems evident when you notice there is no source for any of the tweets made to Harper. This is contrasted with the readily available links provided to support deplorable comments made by RooshV.
Harper makes statements like "He started enlisting the support of his neo-nazi friends." which are obviously being used to create an us/them dichotomy for the reader. "I'm not a horrible racist like the Nazi's, that means I must hate this person who must be a Nazi." the readers would think to themselves.
I have no doubt that some of the content in this article is correct. I am just taken aback by the lack of sources provided, the attempts to slander the "opposition" and the wording of the piece. Being well read on the past of Harper, I would say that the claims have merit, but were blown entirely out of proportion.
I'll happily, and publicly, eat my own words if someone can source proof for her claims. I have no objection to recanting any of this.