DARPA Grant Cancelled for OpenBSD and U-Penn?

Starrider writes "It seems the DARPA grant for OpenBSD and for University of Pennsylvania has been cancelled (?) immediately and without warning. See the full story in Theo's email and on deadly.org." Theo is left to only speculate why funding was suddenly pulled. One also has to wonder what this means for the University of Pennsylvania, since they were also in for a piece of the pie.

Comments

I stand behind Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenBSD is his project. If DARPA wants to retract their funding, so be it. Good riddance. Theo's intrepid and unwavering ethical beliefs are the reason I trust him to write this OS.

Re:I stand behind Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're a bit confused. Unless you are making sweeping accusations and a "guilt by association" claim, in which case you are an absurd purpose and possibly just a silly little person.

First, money is a common denominator in many aspects of society. It is, more or less, simply there as a value marker. We could dwelve deeper into this, but the reality is, it is a fundamental and agreed upon method of exchange, here work/code.

When the project took to the DARPA grant, it was money to improve the OS. No questions as to politics or motivation. Money for code and effort. Hopefully, by now, anyone with two neurons realizes that technology can cut both ways and it depends on the use of that technology that provides evidence of right or wrong (i.e. crypto, a knife).

When Theo took the money, it was to improve OBSD. There was shared purpose between Theo and DARPA that matched and hence the transaction was to take/took place.

When DARPA removed that money, it was (allegedly) for political reasons, not (seemingly) because of loss of common ground on what was to be worked on (e.g. loss of security, features, timetable, etc.). Unless they stupidly believe Theo's antiwar sentiments would cause a decrease in quality code (absurd).

To be consistent, they should pull Bill Gates into a hearing and ask him in detail his war views, and if not agreeable, pull the plug on all MS sales. Same with Linux--if Linus is antiwar in any way, Linux should be chucked.

Really now.

There is nothing hypocritical about Theo's statements. He stated his views on his own time, in another country, and did so DESPITE the grant. That's not hypocritical; that's clear cut freedom of expression and conviction. I hope you haven't forgotten that, because if you are a fellow American, you need to check your own logic at the door. He didn't tone down or water down his statements because he had a grant; that would have been more in line of being "bought".

Or do you believe grants are exclusively decided on the basis of political motivations (undoubtedly a factor though), not the technical ability or the job done?

Essentially stating that he will state his views on matters that have little to no bearing on what was agreed to is principled, and sticking to them even now (e.g. take back the blood money since that has become clear _after_ the fact) continues to be principled, not hypocritical.

If the color of his language after having the grant rejected bothers you, you really should consider that the money was removed after unfavorable comments, which is the real color here, in that it colored the money has pro-war or only for those that support the war...which is not something that I think was probably part of the grant application (if for the war, check here?).

I am further bothered by your snipe since it sticks of guilt by association. As a Republican, I see this too often. Dems label, Reps label, blah blah blah. Get over it. Unless you would agree that, say, everyone who supports Linux also supports China and it's antihumanitarian ways (guilt by association). Unless you would think that DARPA made it abundantly clear that their grant has direct political pro-war motivations (hardly, unless you want to be called a hypocrite yourself, you use the Internet, which grew directly out of such funding).

Rather, it is more likely you just transposed your feelings of the US government on anything with some whacked political motivation and want to twist this as a bad thing by bouncing it off of Theo's (laden) reputation.

For me, it is abundantly clear that the money for code/effort in grant form went beyond the grant. The money was given only for those that support the war, since it was removed _after_ Theo put foward his antiwar sentiments. Last I heard, that wasn't part of the grant application process.

Re:Go FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

the idea, as i understood it, was that the grant would help to facilitate development, but the government would not be able to direct the flow of that development. the openbsd people would continue to do the same thing they had been doing, but would be able to bring on more full time programmers.

additionally, openbsd's drive isn't to make an OS with tons of ports (as they, arguably, do much to hurt security of the local machine), but rather a mature, stable, and secure operating system. I use FreeBSD on both my server and gateway, but am going to switch my server back to OpenBSD with the release of 3.3, simply because of the features OpenBSD offers. However, I would never move my workstation over from FreeBSD, as the ports make it much a very nice match for those looking for a workstation.

Free Speech != No Consequences

[primebase]

Actually, you do have the right to speak freely in the US, just as I suspect you do in Canada. After all, you & your loved ones are not dead/imprisoned/being tortured for what you said.

However...

You did just shoot your mouth off about your employer in a negative way! Not too wise to do that anywhere public, and pretty much just plain dumb to do it VERY publicly in print.

And, lo and behold, they didn't agree with what you had to say (shock, amazement) and they pulled funding.

I hate that you lost your grant money (especially since I like your project and the work you do), but you have no one to blame but yourself.

So no whining.

Refer to the subject of this message if you have any further questions.

Re:Closed-source lobbying

[mkettler]

Although it's somewhat off-topic, despite the lobbying SELinux is still going. They just made an updated release April 7th, a mere 10 days ago.

http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/news.html

Thus, I don't think DARPA has any issue with the open/closed sourced-ness of it.

It does however seem reasonable for a branch of the US DOD to not be wanting to fund someone that is critical of the US military. Wether his statements are true or not is another matter, but it would seem odd to for the DOD provide funding to a non-us citizen that criticizes the DOD. I'd expect them to have been taking a lot of political flack about that.

Open mouth, insert foot

[reemul]

Forget for a moment that the funding source was the US gov't. Just imagine that the money came from a grant from some generic source with no political or social implications whatsoever. A portion of the money was spent, and many of the goals were already reached. The project lead continued to spend the money, in some cases for purposes that were at best dubious and at worst clearly opposed to the wishes of the grant source. And then he gave interviews where he badmouthed them. Do you think that any group, anywhere, would continue to give money to the project?

This isn't a Big Mean US Gov't story - after all, they had been funding the project with pretty lenient restrictions until now - this is yet another case of a great programmer and leader who has let his mouth get in the way of his work. Theo isn't yet up to the level of RMS, but he is trying Really Hard. DARPA brought the gear, the ball, provided a nice field to play on, and gave the OpenBSD team a chance to show what they could do. After a great start, they decided to hang out with friends, do their own thing, and drink beer out of their helmets. And then they threw dung at the guys in the suits paying for the party. Brilliant. Why should anyone at all be shocked that DARPA took their ball and went home?

I like OpenBSD, and use it on my firewall box. Partly because of the security, and in part because as an also-ran in the OS popularity contests, none of the script kiddies even bother trying to get in. I'll upgrade to 3.3, and maybe even buy the disks to give some money back to the team. But I still think that personally, Theo is a prick, and this time it bit him.

Coders and testers can give back to the Open Source community through pretty obvious ways. Same with tech writers helping with the docs, and lawyers keeping an eye on the licenses and handling privacy and security issues. Any PR or other personal contact specialist folks out there looking for a way to help out? There really needs to be some project full of helpful folks to handle the interface between the socially-deficient techies and the prickly and sensitive people in the outside world, from investors to possible users. I know I need the help when dealing with clients, and clearly I'm not the only one. How about it?

Re:Open mouth, insert foot

[Flamerule]

The project lead continued to spend the money, in some cases for purposes that were at best dubious and at worst clearly opposed to the wishes of the grant source.

I have no idea what you're referring to here. Was Theo sending grant money to the Iraqi government, or something? Certainly you can't be referring the the beer quote, since it's specifically stated that DARPA money wasn't spent on beer. As if that was in doubt...

After a great start, they decided to hang out with friends, do their own thing, and drink beer out of their helmets. And then they threw dung at the guys in the suits paying for the party.

So the OpenBSD team shouldn't be allowed to drink alcohol while they're being funded by DARPA? What should the rules be? No parties, wear full IBM business suits, 50000 lines of code per month? And I'd hardly call Theo's opposition to war in Iraq "[throwing] dung" at the DOD. He's got lots of company, especially in Canada.

Re:Open mouth, insert foot

[reemul]

At what point did DARPA money become an entitlement? Theo (and everyone else) is allowed to say pretty much anything they want about the US Gov't without being shot or put in jail. That is what free speech is all about. However, that doesn't mean there aren't any consequences. DARPA is under no obligation to give the project any money, so they decided to stop doing so, a decision they are absolutely entitled to make. Mr. de Raadt has no inalienable right to get paid by the US Gov't, their freedom to cut him off is just as strong a right as his freedom to say whatever he likes.

If he wants to keep getting money from the US DoD, he should try to avoid saying unkind things about them. Not that his comments were provably the reason for the cessation of funding, but they weren't helpful. Just spending most of the money on non-US programmers was probably something they weren't happy with - they are, after all, US taxpayer funded. He made a free-willed decision to speak his mind, which I respect even if I don't agree with his opinions. In return, he must accept the results of that decision. He could have smiled while taking their money, instead he said his piece and no longer gets the cash. Life continues.

Re:Serves Them Right

[3141]

I'm always astounded how people think they have the right to express their opinions and then act surprised when there are repercussions.

Perhaps because when things are happening that will affect the whole world, including themselves, they feel that they have just as much a right to speak freely as politicians.

relevant quote

[zogger]

--relevant quote from down the list:

"I am not sorry for having said my anti-war stuff, in fact if anything,
this comes to something I said to Ty a few nights ago at the bar: "If
they take the money away, then it was blood money, and I don't want it".

I actually feel redeemed :-)"

--good for you theo. It was blood money. The US government has been hijacked and is run by ....well, that word you can't use in usenet. I've seen enough with what passes for the law and legalities with this junta, they are the rulers, everyone else is a subject. They've been hacking down websites, now they are starting with the ultra violence on anyone who dares to have an opinion against them. Losing cash is nothing in the long run. Screw em, make your OS, and keep your opinions.

And quite frankly, the government doesn't want "the people" to have a secure OS, they want "total informational awareness". Can't do that with secure software to the people, can you?

We're seeing it now, assaults on security researchers and developers, assaults on encryption, etc.

I've never run your OS but I can see what's happening, so you must be on the right track. Just lately they've taken down irwin schiff and his tax research, and also the publishers of cracking the code, the expose of the UCC in the US. so it's just not specifically IT. Politics as usual like you would see in any banana republic, just so happens this is turning into a LARGE banana republic, or should I say a "regime"..

This is just stupid.

[dracocat]

1) There is no evidence the reason the funding was pulled because of Theo's comments.

2) I think people are missing the point. It was the Department of Defense, not just the US Government that was funding the research. Now, why the hell would you shoot your mouth in a negative way about somebody that is giving you funding--AND then complain about it.

If you care about something strongly enough that you are willing to stand up for it and take the consequences... good for you. But why does he act surprised and start whining when the consequences actually arrive!

Re:couple things

[mosch]

Has anybody looked at the Theo De Raadt is a huge fucking asshole angle? In the past he's managed to build walls between himself and the rest of the world, and perhaps he just did it again.

Re:I don't know what to say...

[Almost-Retired]

Neither do I. And while I'm a bit abivalent about this war from the standpoint of the weapons used, such as the depleted uranium cannon shells, thats not germain to this particular subject.

What is germain is that DARPA issued a grant to fund a major effort at improving this particular OS, one that already has a decent reputation for being secure, airplane tickets were bought and paid for out of the expectation of receiving the grant in a timely manner, plus accomodations arranged for. All of this costs money.

To then have the grant canceled just because the head honcho made his views known on the war is being petty beyond belief!

I have no idea who is responsible for this, but if this person can be identified, we, the tax-payers of the US would most assuredly like to interview him for the public record, and so that appropriate changes in the funding of DARPA can be arranged in congress.

Its not out of the realm of possibilities to arrange to have this persons salary removed from the DARPA budget by congress.

Its been done at least once before when a Richard Davis at the BATF, who was espousing a national gun registration scheme, had his salary removed from the BATF budget by a nearly unanimous vote of both houses of congress, now about 25 or so years back up the log.

Who else feels as I do on this, and could afford to offer a bit of help, it sure sounds like Theo needs it right now!

That, and let us see if we can find out who made that decision. IMO this person needs to see how _real politics_ is played.

--
Cheers, Gene

Oh, come on.....

[deanj]

Hey, I've been in on DARPA funded grants before, and I'll tell you, there are a TON of reasons that funding could have been pulled...

1) The contact at DARPA changed. This happens all the freaking time. The guy who used to be your bonus baby might have been asked to move aside (or moved up, as the case may be), and the new guy just didn't "get" the project.

2) They expected milestones, or at least reports of the sort that backed up what was being done on the project. If someone was slacking in getting these reports written, ....cut!

3) Questions weren't being answered in a way they wanted to see. I've seen this too. It's pretty damn embarrasing to watch the funding agency ask legit questions, and then get the runaround on answers. THEY HATE THIS.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Also, usually the main contact with the DARPA folks are NOT the guys implementing the project. It's the guy who's responsible for the grant. They don't give two rats cheeks about who's on the project, as long as the work gets done.

I seriously doubt they had any idea who Theo was, no matter how "famous" he is within his community. Putting too much stock in anyone's profile besides the guy who wrote the original grant is just grandstanding (grant-standing? heh).

It could have happened for any of the above reasons, or more. When I first hear about this a few hours ago, I looked for it on Slash.... Glad to see the submitter had a level head in posted what he/she did, since until the guy who wrote the grant speaks out, there are no facts here, just guesses.

Not so simple as that...

[An Onerous Coward]

I hate to see this war portrayed as just an oil grab. It's a thousand times more complicated than that, and a thousand times more complicated than "We're spreading democracy out of the goodness of our spleens" as well. There are dozens of motivations here, some noble, others far less so.

Nevertheless, the "oil grab" mentality is at least a bit better-reasoned than you've portrayed:

If it was an oil grab, an 'informed person' would have to articulate:

why the US would spend $100+ billion to control Iraqi oil revenues that are a twentieth of that annually... surely one could get a higher return elsewhere?

First, you have to realize that it's not the US Government that directly benefits. It's the energy industry that reaps the benefits. Cheap oil benefits refineries and power plants.

President Bush is heavily financed and heavily influenced by the energy industry. The links are well known, well documented, and date back to his first run for governor of Texas. I'm not saying that Big Oil snaps and the Prez. comes running. But when it comes to complex matters of public policy, a bit of access goes a long way.

what evidence there is that the U.S. will actually *take* (grab) the oil, rather than leave it for the Iraqis to own and control

Nobody thinks the U.S. is being that brazen. We could never storm in, take full ownership of Iraq's oilfields, and still maintain any more credibility than Saddam did when he "liberated" Kuwait. The UN would go nuts. American voters would go nuts. It simply could not happen.

But imagine playing it out another way. Go in, depose a ruthless dictator whom everybody detests, and set up an interim government. Set up a few service contracts for American companies to improve Iraq's infrastructure. This includes providing some technology critical to developing oil fields. Once the native government takes over, they're likely to continue those contracts out of obligation, need, or just plain inertia.

Sure, I make it sound all smarmy. The kicker is, even under my scenario, Iraq is still better off.

Now, regarding your "return on investment" question: It gets way more complicated when you start looking at the OPM (other people's money) problem. For example, Bush can't help himself to a campaign contribution from the US Treasury. But he can ask Congress to spend Treasury funds in ways that benefit his supporters, which leads to contributions he'll need for 2004. Similarly, if a private company thinks that it will get $1 billion from the fallout of a war, it doesn't care that the US will spend $100 billion. Remember the fool who damaged Berkeley's fiber optic link while trying to steal a copper wire for salvage? Even though the damage done was ten thousand times the value of the copper, for him it would have been money in the bank.

explain why the US would rather take oil than just buy it on the open market

As I said earlier, it would be politically impossible. But the US does benefit from the cheap oil prices caused by an addition of a new supplier to the energy market.

under related but alternate theories, acknowledge (or explain why not) why one should be suspicious that US is doing this for oil company contracts, but why that same logic would not apply to French and Russian rationales for opposing the war

I'm not sure I understand the question.

explain why the US would act in such an insecure or greedy way when only 10-15% of its current energy usage comes from persian gulf oil (~50% energy usage is oil, 25% of US oil comes from persian gulf)

First, stop thinking of the US as a homogenous blob with clear and unconflicted interests. Don't even think of the government that way. Instead, see that this war does benefit certain interest groups, and that

You don't understand Free Speech.

[ClarkEvans]

you do have the right to speek freely ... However... You did just shoot your mouth off about your employer in a negative way...

This is problematic on several fronts. First, this was an acedemic institution project which had its funding withdrawn... if it was done for political reasons, i.e., beacuse of what one of the researchers said, then it is definately, clearly, a violation of free speech. If he was awarded the grant based on the acedemic merits, and the money was canceled due to his political opinions, then this is quiet ugly.

Second, DARPA is not a private enterprise. It is an agent of the government, and an instrument of the people. While a private enterprise may be free to act anyway they want (subject to lots of restrictions _if_ they are publicly owned), the government isn't. It's bound by the constituion.

Thirdly, this is especially important for acedemic researchers, since they are in a trusted position. If publicly funded researchers have to watch what they say or their funding will dissappear... then you have effectively silenced a great majority of them. It is very much a violation of free speech.

Free speech means not only that the government won't throw you in jail, it means that it won't treat you differently from others based on your political viewpoints.

Its about common sense, not free speech

[Sanity]

Many appear to be arguing that the reason the grant was withdrawn was because Theo expressed an anti-war opinion. This is misleading, the reason the grant was withdrawn was more likely due to the manner in which Theo expressed that opinion, namely by expressing concern about DARPA's motives.

If Theo was really concerned about DARPA's motives, he should have expressed his opinion by not accepting the money, not by taking it then using the fact that he had taken it as a vehicle for his political opinions.

I am saddened that a silly mistake could have denied the public good the benefit of this funding, but this is the real world - and in the real world - you don't take money from someone then openly question their motives for giving it to you.

Re:Theo's comments in Globe and Mail

[CausticWindow]

Ok, let's look at Somalia first.

As always, there's the corporate welfare angle. When the US spends money on a military campaign, guess where that money ends up? Other than that, you have the geographic strategic importance of the country (the former Soviet supported Ethiopia to the north, the Suez canal to the east). And then there is oil. Yes, Somalia got oil.

Even if you were to believe that the mission in Somalia was of a humanitarian nature, you can't disregard that the US were largely responsible for creating the situation in the first place. Their support of an extremely violent dictator (Siad Barre, maybe an even greater bastard than Saddam) in exchange for lucrative oil contracts, during the seventies and eighties, eventually brought on a bloody civil war.

The real world has nothing to do with the Jerry Bruckheimer fantasy Black Hawk Down.

That the genocide in Rwanda could reach such levels as it dit, has been partially attributed to how the US administration managed this case in the security council. From the beginnings of this disaster, they opposed most of the remaining members of the security council. First in supporting withdrawal of most of the UN controlled forces in the country. Then by stalling for unknown reasons, when then UN proposed a second plan for restoring order.

Regarding the former Yugoslavia and the NATO led intervention, the US has never tried to cover up that they had very real strategic goals with this campaign. Take a look at for example this report.

As I said earlier, the world is not a rosy place. I don't particularily care that the US did or did not intervene in these latest campaigns in Africa or Southern Europe. What's scary is that so many of you americans, firmly believe that your leaders only act out of a "pure" motive. I'm sure you're not so naive in other regards. The only explanation I've got, is that you must be blinded with "patriotism".