Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenBSD Lands $2 Million In DARPA Money

Posted by timothy on from the laundering-through-pennsylvania dept.

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.

3 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. cash versus equipement by st0rmcold · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I completly understand how an OSS project can require funds for further development, what I worry is how these funds are donated, is it all contributed in cash?

    Problem with that is some people can easily take advantage of a situation like that, I think funding should instead come in required equipement and/or other expenses, but not cash, because there are many contributors (coders) to projects like this, and no one should be taking coin from it.

    Can someone shed some light? maybe I am off base...

    --
    Posting useless rant since 2003.
  2. no words can describe by frankm_slashdot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    well.. yeah, they can...

    holy fucking shit.... this is turly beautiful.

    there are two types of people in this world (well.. actually more, but ill narrow it down here), those who talk about needing - have their needs filled- then still dont produce... and then there are those who need - and once those needs are met.. they DO produce...

    i hope theo and the rest of obsd are of the latter...

    -frank

  3. Re:Can you say, "Hypocrite?" by astroboy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Give us a break; if he felt that strongly about the war, he could've said, "Thanks, but I'll wait till you guys leave Iraq before I'll accept your money."

    So it's your opinion that money should buy silence? That anyone who accepts money from the governement is morally required to not criticize the government that funded them? Or is it your position that the government should only fund researchers who agree with the current administration?

    I think just the opposite; unless you want all research to lose its independance, you should criticize even your patrons if that's how you feel. That comment might cost him similar money in the future; but he said what he believed anyway. That does show backbone and ethics.

    For all I know, The rationalle might be that he's accepting this money exactly because it'll be $2M that is not going to develop bombs or other WMDs. That seems like a completely self-consistant moral position.