Slashdot Mirror
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.
Is because they read Slashdot and saw the *BSD is dying.
...they discovered Canada harbors french talking people.
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.
Theo's anti-war comments in The Globe and Mail can be found here. Theo wasn't told why funding was pulled but he suspects his comments there did it.
I don't think it was Theo's comments to ZDNet on "security through beer drinking" which can be found here.
The "oil grab" comment does strike me as a bit uninformed and polemic, but I'll leave that debate for another time. As an OpenBSD user, I'm sad to see the funding pulled and not happy that someone in the U.S. gov't is being petty. (Or perhaps they're just paranoid?)
--LP
I was suprised to see DARPA (which is more independent of this sort of thing in general) giving money of such magnitude to an open product, but I'm not suprised now to see them renig without explanation.
Read the whole thread; not everyone thinks it was because of the peace comments. (Not that it would be surprising to this particular slashdotter.)
Something else that ought to be looked at is the Microsoft angle -- in the past they've put pressure on public institutions to avoid supporting open source projects and instead invest in the "free" market. in this particular climate, of jingoism and nationalism, how hard would it be for them to target OpenBSD as a Canadian, anti-capitalist movement, and then to shove a couple hundred copies of IIS under DARPA's nose?
But, then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the nature of the grant. It is quite possible that DARPA was funding it specifically because of the non-proprietary nature of the software.
My guess? We'll never know the whole story. (But, I've been wrong before. I used to think Enterprise had promise.)
* Corporate lobby (hey, it's a sale-point)
* TIA would be seriously hampered if everyone is very secure
* fear of technology leak into other countries
* other acts of "head-in-ass"
My life in the land of the rising sun.
It's less likely that the grant got pulled for comments Theo made in a Canadian newspaper than for the fact that the government which has assiduously spent the last 18 months dismantling our country's(*) claim to being the Land of the Free finally realized that their vastly-expanding surveillance capabilities would be hampered by increased computing security. Plug pulled, time for Clipper 2.
(*) For values of "our country" == "the USA".
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
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.
So yeah this might hit closer to home to some of you now. The DARP grant was to the U. of Penn. and a chunk went to OpenBSD with another smaller chunk to OpenSSL.
-- schubert
Who's biting the hand that feeds them? Not Theo. Theo has class. Theo lost some bucks. That sucks. But here's the thing: DARPA gets a lot more out of Theo then Theo ever hoped to get from DARPA. This is just another example of idiocy run rampant at the defense department. This is the same department, remember, that ascertained the necessity of protecting the Iraq Oil Ministry whilst the relics of civilation's birth were plundered. What's so important about the Oil Ministry? What have they got there? A bunch of loan guarantees with the French, vs. the cradle of civilazation? DOD fuckwit shitwits. These people are so stupid that they will put their own interests at risk in order to spite someone (a very intelligent someone) who doesn't tow their fucked up party line.
Theo will prevail. The current administration of the US DOD will go down in history as infamous self-important crusading intolerant assholes responsible for great world instability and economic chaos.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
They're going to be cancelling as many contracts and grants, etcetc, as possible to recoup some of those costs.
You obviously have little idea how beaurocratic money works. You don't spend money in one place and move it back into the pot for use by other things.
Once money is allocated for a particular use or group, it stays there. This isn't money that DARPA is losing from the government, just money they decided they weren't going ot give to BSD. They will spend it on something else.
The war will be funded by us, our kids, their kids, and so on as budget deficit.
OT: I think making a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget may be going too far, but make it so that you can't be re-elected as president if you have a budget in the red (or something like that -- though not sure what to do about second-term presidents)..
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.
Theo's message follows:
- - - -
FYI,
It has come to my attention that DARPA has cancelled the POSSE program with UPENN, (sub OpenBSD & a bit for OpenSSL) for undisclosed reasons, effective today, without any warning.
My suspicion is this happened because I made anti-war statements in a Canadian newspaper article in the Globe & Mail, but I am not an American citizen so I cannot claim to have free speech there (even made "quote of the day").
In a phone call a few days ago it was expressed to me that there were people inside DARPA and UPENN who were very uncomfortable with the article, but I was not told specifically what upset them.
We have 60 developers flying in from around the world (they bought their own tickets, non-refundable) for a Hackathon May 8 - 20, where we do a major part of our development; since DARPA is now forcing UPENN to cancel those Hotel accomodations, I would be very grateful if anyone can find a way to help us. I'm going to need to pay for it myself, since these people are going to come.
Thanks.
- - - -
The anti-war statements that were made can be found here
--
Full steam ahead, stoke the boiler with more kittens! -- Bluey, Dragon Tails
Here is the actual paypal link: Paypal link.
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?
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
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 from down the list:
:-)"
....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.
"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
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"..
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!
In a surprising turn of events, BSD was found lying dead on the side of the road in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I'm sure that we all have enjoyed using BSD-derived code at some point. BSD will be missed. Truly an American icon.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
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.
My suggestion, as an OpenBSD afficianado, is to keep your server and workstation running FreeBSD and to shift your gateway/firewall to OpenBSD.
Gateways, firewalls, NATs - these are the things Open excels at. The firewall it offers is quite honestly second to none as of this point in time. As of 3.4, Open will have quite a lead in this realm. FreeBSD kicks the unholy shnikey out of Open on the performance and user front, however, and there's no denial nor excuse otherwise from the team nor the hardcore following of Open.
Just a suggestion, though. Alternatively, you might consider doing what I what I do . . . Open on the gateway and 'insecure/screw-around' server, Free on the heavy traffic webserver for performance, and Gentoo Linux on the workstation. This is just my personal approach, however.
Of course, the fact that you're using BSD on multiple machines suggests you're wise enough to make your own decisions, heh.
--Ryv
I'm a student at the University of Pennsylvania, and Jonathan Smith teaches CSE350 every semester (our software engineering course). Last year we wrote a kernel-level firewall for OpenBSD. It was a great course, and he's pretty much the only professor here with any idea what software engineering means.
:)
It's a shame that this grant was cancelled. He could do a lot for the gov's computers.
Now I know why we used OpenBSD in the course and not Linux.
Unless mankind redesigns itself
Meanwhile, in some other part of the country, some contractor for DARPA is placing an order for $5 million worth of Microsoft Office because the damn thing keeps saying it's not activated. Our government really needs to get its head out of its politicians' asses.
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
If you like OpenBSD, chip in a few bucks. If it went down the way it did, then that's a shame. I'm a Canadian, FWIW, and it's really too bad this went down like it did. I also run a OpenBSD 3.2 firewall that I love. I can't say that it suprises me though, and it certainly is dissapointing.
If you're an American and don't like this, then write your elected representative of choice. I'll be writing mine, but only because I'd rather see them throw money at these guys than a $1.077 Billion dollar gun registry boondacle. OpenBSD sells boxed sets, and I certainly imagine they'll take cash, too.
I didn't see in the article anywhere you could send a donation to. OpenBSD.org has their own donations page and a orders page for their propaganda and cds and section for donations as well.
If nothing else, OpenBSD will profit greatly from the exposure and free publicity this will generate in the Globe and Mail tomorrow.
..don't panic
While I do empathize with your anger and would love to see the guy responsible face the wrath of the public, I must say this is not an isolated event. The DoD has put my employer quite in a similar situation a number of times. They would compete a contract, award it, and then decide not to fund it, essentially canceling it before it began. I have a feeling that it may be just another one of those events that have occured rather than something more sinister.
EOT
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...
....cut!
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,
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.
Nevertheless, the "oil grab" mentality is at least a bit better-reasoned than you've portrayed:
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure I understand the question.
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 want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
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.
Theo DeRaadt statement crimethink. Unproceed grantwise.
Cthulhu loves you.
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.
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.
I think Theo has been right about any technical and licencing issues (i.e. ipf) but cheerist, shut your yaphole when people are giving you badly needed funding with no strings attatched. The war has NOTHING to do with OpenBSD and if the KKK/Hitler/Child Pornographers of America trust fund wants to donate vast sums, take it and run. If someone asks how you feel about getting the money from them repeat after me: "The organisations that have donated money to the project have absoutley no control over it's direction so my personal feelings are irrelevant."
Oh well too late. Loose lips sink ships.
For full disclosurer: I currently work on a defense project paid for by the Air Force, and my girlfriend is under a DARPA contract, so I pretty familiar with the process.
First I have to start with the logical. I work for X. If I go out and bad mouth X at a bar after a stressful day of work, I would expect no repercussions. However if my derogatory comments made the evening news, I would start packing my desk. No rational person would expect to have a job in the morning, why should this be any different. His first ammendment rights were upheld, he is not in jail, or otherwise quietened. To refuse to continue a business relationship is an entirely different matter.
That said, DARPA is very structured an meticulous about how its money is spent. They expect quarterly reports, where they spend a day and a half going over everything. Thats 6-days a year, where they really get to know the project. They don't care if your project spends money on foreign researchers, as long as THEIR money isn't spent on foreign researchers. The same also goes to foreign excursions: you can fly to any country for someone elses conference. But if you are using their money to host a conference, it should be in the U.S.
The reasons for such rules should be obvious. If $10 million is spent in the US, it only costs the gov't $5m (b/c the money will come back in taxes @EOY). If the money goes out of country it cost the gov't $10 million dollars.
Oh yeah, and I am a Canadian citizen and coder (but I live and pay taxes in the US). I hope that Canada exercises similar restraint towards keeping the tax payers dollars in country. The only countries I would like to see benefiting from my tax dollars, are the developing countries of the world (which Canada isn't).
Sig Nazi- "No Sig for you, come back 1 year."
Perhaps you should become a CMS
sorryOS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
While understanding what you mean and where you are coming from... you are suggesting Theo change his ways. I have been subscribed to misc@openbsd.org for over a year now and I firmly believe that Theo knows what he is doing even if he lost this money. He stats in a later thread on the misc mailing list that this is actually for the better in the long run (could have happened at a slightly better time like 1-2 months in the future for the purpose of the hotel/hackathon)...
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
Government bodies do pull money on projects in order to make ends meet, and its a US government which has dropped many schools, a complete health program and a lot more in equivalent value on Iraq. The OpenBSD funding may just have been converted into a couple of missiles instead.
Theo can still have the last laugh, I dread to think how many holes in common government used software the OpenBSD audit team could find in one hackathon.