OpenBSD Lands $2 Million In DARPA Money

An anonymous reader writes "Canada's National Post is reporting today that DARPA is (indirectly) funding $2-million (US) to Theo de Raadt of OpenBSD. The article is available here." Update: 04/07 21:01 GMT by T : As several readers have pointed out, this blurb should credit instead The Globe and Mail rather than the National Post.

Comments

Don't look a gift grant in the mouth

[dtolton]

I don't understand why getting money from DARPA makes them uncomfortable. He mentions it comes with no strings attached.

Shouldn't we be happy about grants like this that will promote and advance Open Source software in general?

Re:Don't look a gift grant in the mouth

[47PHA60]

Mr. DeRaadt thinks software should be secure, and that people should be free. He is now being funded in part by DARPA, which is also designing the Total Information Awareness project. Its main platform will probably be OpenBSD. A lot of free software is used for purposes that the original authors might not like.

So why not question the source of a gift? That shows intelligence, thoughtfulness, and awareness of the effects of one's actions on the wider world.

I agree that we should be happy for the promotion and improvement of free software, but it is smart of anyone, no matter his or her politics, to keep an eye on the big picture to make sure that one does not explicitly take money to promote an agenda that is abhorrent to his or her morals.

Re:Don't look a gift grant in the mouth

[leery]

Sometimes it twists the other way, too, like the internet becoming a public conduit for slashdotters all over the world to trash the agency that funded it's development (DARPA). The interstate highway system was also DoD funded.

And sometimes the military takes advantage of privately developed technology and adapts it to improve weapons systems and training (e.g. PC's, laptops, war sims).

Look, as long as military money is going somewhere, isn't it a thousand million times better that it goes to an open source free software project than to a more lethal bullet or some TIA code that no one can ever see?

(Can any lawyers here tell us whether military use of OpenBSD would be bound by GPL? Is our next tank's source code going to be available for download?)

Also, I'm pretty sure the military didn't conceive or order this "oil grab". They're just stuck doing the dirty work. I'm not saying that makes them the good guys or the bad guys, but they're not THOSE bad guys.

Re:Why open source works

[Lxy]

Why is this news?

$2 million is news. That's a lot of money to be out into open source.

Re:$2 million? For a Dead OS?

[4of12]

1. Posses huge, pain-in-the-ass ego.

Alas, this happens.

Highly talented and intelligent people get exasperated with us mortals and let us know in no uncertain terms that we are stupid. I knew someone in school like this once. He would put pointed questions out that would show people's stupidity in broad daylight. But he was so intelligent, and I had enough intelligence still left, to know when he was right.

True intelligence is being able to recognize someone more intelligent than you are and to be able to support their work even if they have a grating personality.

Don't ever make the mistake of putting them in a role of managing people, though.

Crypto is good. Crypto is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

from the openbsd website:

"Today cryptography is an important means for enhancing the security of an operating system...

'...When we create OpenBSD releases or snapshots we build our release binaries in free countries to assure that the sources and binaries we provide to users are free of tainting. In the past our release binary builds have been done in Canada, Sweden, and Germany...'

Gov spends millions to control crypto exports.

Gov spends millions to support OpenBSD which
bypasses US crypto export laws?!

it depends on whether it makes a difference

[Trepidity]

If he were taking money to implement DARPA-requested features, I could see the issue. However, if all he's doing is taking no-strings-attached money to do work he'd be doing anyway, I don't see the moral conundrum. If there are any negative effects of his work (OpenBSD being used by TIA, for example), they'd exist even if he wasn't funded by DARPA; the only solution would be to stop developing OpenBSD entirely, not to keep doing it without DARPA funding. So insofar as DARPA funding doesn't change anything, I'd say take it. Plus, at least it ensures that this portion of DARPA's budget goes to something worthwhile and unobjectionable, rather than letting them keep it to spend on something else.