More on OpenBSD Funding Saga

Mortimer.CA writes "The OpenBSD Journal has an article with more info on cutting of the OpenBSD funding. It seems that the funding was partially cut due to worries about "capable nation-states". Also Mark West asked the hotel to cancel all reservations for the upcoming "hackathon" -- even though many of the arriving developers have non-refundable tickets, and would have no place to stay. Jonathan Smith also probably had something to do with the decision. If you would like to voice your opinion to these individuals, please be clear, extremely professional and courteous. Flaming and being childish will only hurt OSS. Also, please think about donating or ordering something to help the project along." DARPA, which initially denied that it was cancelling the grant, has now admitted it. Although de Raadt seems to be upset with how his UPenn contacts are handling the cancellation, it's DARPA that is ultimately at fault, not the UPenn people.

Comments

Damn, it was confirmed

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

I saw this story at globetechnology yesterday but didn't even try to submit it (I don't like feeding the zealots :) because it was being said by DARPA that it was just a misunderstanding and I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Too bad they lied.

The really sad part? The US government can still use OpenBSD, even though they basically flipped them the bird. It would have been better if they had just never offered the funding at all.

This definately makes DARPA and the US Government look bad. Bastion of freedom of speech my ass.
So what if Theo has some anti-war sentiments - that doesn't have any bearing on his development efforts.

Ok, ok, I'm ranting now. One question: What the hell does "capable nation states" mean?

DARPA may share the base responsibility, but...

[HappyOscar]

It was the UPENN folks who still had to pay 80% of the hotel fee for the cancellation (that's 24k canadian that they paid). It was also the UPENN folks who convinced the hotel not to let the OpenBSD folks pay the remaining 20% of the hotel bill, preferring to simply waste the 80% they had to pay anyway. Seems a little childish to me.

--

Re:Isn't this pretty cut and dry?

[jmccay]

"Thats the whole problem. Just because free speech comes at a price, doesn't mean it should."

What would you do? Would you force people to buy CDs from RIAA companies that speak their mind and say something a person doesn't agree with? It's the same problem. If you're not buying CDs in protest of what the RIAA is doing, then you are a hipocrit for saying that the other people can't do the same thing for causes they believe in that much.
It's a fact of life that speech has a price--especially free speech. The free in free speech means you're free to say it, but it doesn't mean that you're free from the consequences of what you said. If you run into a crowded market and yell bomb causing wide spread panick (and maybe some injuries and deaths), you will be held responcible for what you said--especially if there was no bomb. It's that simple. The same goes for actors, actresses and open source developers. People have a right to decide where they spend their money.
The old says, "don't bite the hand that feeds you" is a very wise old saying that rings true. By saying what you said, you effectively saying that these people con't have a right to decide where their money is spent.