Slashdot Mirror
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.
There's a huge difference between anti-US and anti-war statements. What Theo essentially said (Im paraphrasing) was "from the funding we recieved, at least that's once less bomb that can be built". How is that anti-US? If he would've said something like "I hope more terrorist organizations attack the US and blow stuff up", that would be a whole different story.
What it comes down to, is that free speech shouldnt come at a price.
Anti-war != Anti-US
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
OpenBSD made comments critisising the way US foreign-policys are doen these days. Just as Bill Clinton did.
I don't know how things are in the US these days, but if using your right to free speech makes you a terrorist or incapable of recieving state benefits... You are all prisoners allready.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
This is the umpteenth time where I hear that some funding for just about ANYTHING is cancelled because of the "recent world events".
Usually, it involves "economic problems" - "no, we cannot fund your students' association this year... because... because of the recent world events and their consequences on the economy".
You then have the security problems - "no, I won't cross the Atlantic to go to your meeting because... because... because of the recent world events".
In short, the "recent world events" have been used as an excuse for tight-fistedness and laziness.
As for DARPA, I know that the "war on error" has been used as a pretext to fund projects for which the link to terror is, shall we say, a bit remote. I know of some DARPA-funded projects that are really about model-checking hybrid systems using semialgebraic sets, but have been packaged as studying anthrax.
Perhaps we shouldn't make too much out of this decision by the DARPA bureaucracy. I suspect Mr De Raadt would have had much success if the project had no been so blatantly international and if his sponsors had packaged it as "preventing terrorist hackers from crashing safety-critical systems".
(I'm seeking a grant under this last pretext, somehow.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
The reason for denying it is also obvious, their main supporters (the US citizens) would probably not be in support of that decision, thus they are betraying them.
And that my friend is a good reason to kick and scream about it, but because if we don't, it will be far easier for them to betray their people agian.
The really sad part? The US government can still use OpenBSD, even though they basically flipped them the bird
If you believe that, you're missing the whole point of OSS (and the BSD license and any others I haven't mentioned).
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
I don't know how things are in the US these days, but if using your right to free speech makes you a terrorist or incapable of recieving state benefits... You are all prisoners allready.
Things have become very ugly in the states in the last few months, and threaten to become dramatically moreso in the not-so-distant future.
In principal we aren't prisoners yet, as we can theoretically still emigrate if we so choose. As a practical manner, however, emigration is quite difficult for even the well qualified (I have lived as an expat, and could have emigrated and stayed in Germany at the time, but chose instead to follow the money back to the US. At the time it was still a relatively free country, with Orwellian concerns being an issue of what was coming if we continued down the path, not what had already come into being, as is now the case). Now that I feel an increasing desire to leave once again I am finding the barriars to emigration, or rather immigration at the far end (Europe at least; Canada appears to be more friendly in this regard and is a real possibility), are extraordinarilly high. I feel empathy for anyone who has gone through this nonsense trying to come to the US in the past, and it does feel like a bit of karma in action. Until one realizes that it is governments that exclude, and that in collusion with one another they very effectively trap their people, all the while making the other nation out to be the bad guy ("Those self-centered [Americans|Germans|French|...] won't let us hard working folks immigrate!"). As a PR move it sure beats the Berlin wall.
In other words, without the ability to actually move somewhere else (and be allowed by that somewhere else to do so), one really is a prisoner in one's land as a practical matter, even if in theory one would be allowed to leave.
The gist of what you say is correct, however. The United States has become dramatically less free, and stands perilously close to the threshhold where non-democratic architectures of control reach critical mass and peaceful reform becomes all but impossible. From there the decline and fall will all but be assured, with the only question remaining that of timing: will the violence come in a year, a decade, or a century?
This "doomsday" (though the fall of a government hardly constitutes armageddon) scenerio is still avoidable, but I fear if people do not begin insisting on their rights and liberties vocally, loudly, and with resolve, it won't be for long. Then the best we'll be able to hope for as Americans is a long slow, gradual decline, rather than a precipitous fall. Given the trends of the last several years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations (though to my eyes at least much more accelerated under Aschcroft & Co.), however, it appears that even that hope may be a vain one.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Well, think of this instead:
If DARPA wants to fund work on OpenBSD, why do they need Theo? After all, they have the same access to the source as anyone else, so they can hire anyone they like to make any changes they like and release the code back to the community. Is Theo going to refuse to include good code because it comes from the US gov't? Of course he'll have all his team comb over it looking for trojans and other backdoors, but if it is good clean work, then it will get included. Or he will get savaged for excluding important fixes and features for political purposes.
Open Source means that as long as you release your code back to the community, you don't need to work with anyone you don't like. Including project leaders. They can either add the code or face a fork. The gov't doesn't care, they'll use their new code anyway, so any problems go to someone else. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a serious issue in the next few years as the governments who have promised to adopt Open Source software for major portions of their infrastructure get further along in their projects. It's nice to think that using OSS==Enlightened!, but bureaucrats are bureaucrats, it won't be long before they get tired of dealing with opinionated scruffy coder geeks and try to take control of everything for their own purposes. That's just the way they are. The Chinese programmers alone will seriously outnumber the other folks working on a given project, giving them an instant majority and probably a major say in how a project is run.
Thought the businesses taking over your software was a frightening thought? At least they are fairly predictable in their desire to make a profit. Government intervention will be a whole new terror. Instead of reflexively cheering when another governmental body chooses OSS over the Evil Microsoft, stop to think about what that might mean in a few years. How often do gov'ts get involved in anything without trying to control them? And how often has gov't control led to a quality result? Hmm...
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
How dare you inject some reason into the wailing and gnashing of teeth we see here daily??
Like you, I don't care enough about this "issue" to read all the related information, but it occurs to me there's nothing on the books that says DARPA has to continue funding something they don't like, don't agree with, or want more control over.
The DoD doesn't want to pay for something that will subsequently be given away to anyone who wants it. What's the problem? Should we give away all our nuclear technology? Out brand new UAV tech? JDAMs?
If I had mod points today I'd mod you up. I'm getting sick of the "The U.S. gov't is evil" crowd.
Just as Microsoft can use Linux. Part of the risk you take in distributing Free Software (TM) is that someone you hate might use it. Don't like that? You're perfectly capable of changing the license to say "This Software may be used only be readers of Slashdot." or "This Software may not be used by employees of any government." But that's not the case.
This definately makes DARPA and the US Government look bad.
Indeed it does. I won't debate that point. However....
Bastion of freedom of speech my ass.
How has this restricted Free Speech? Theo is still able to work on OpenBSD. So are other people. There is no law that prevents that. The money just has to come from somewhere else.
I'll post this here, since lots of people seem to be confused:
The First Ammendment has NOT been violated here. No laws prevent the OpenBSD project from moving forward. In fact, if that last portion about petitioning the government had been followed, we probably wouldn't have had this problem. If Theo had said "Look, I'd really like to accept this grant, but I have the following concerns, is there anything you can do appease them?", there probably would have been some converstaions in DARPA offices, which would have resulted in either a compromise, or Theo beeing unable to morally and ethically accept, and that would have been the end of it.Freedom of Speech does NOT mean Freedom from Consequences. Freedom of Speech is a right, but rights are not something to be used lightly. If you don't believe in your viewpoint enough to make sacrifices, then maybe you should reconsider whether you want to make your viewpoint public. Was this whole DARPA thing handled poorly? Yes. Does it make the government look like a bunch of jerks? Yes. Is it a violation of the First Ammendment? Nope.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Theo de Raadt made comments in his own name. That is his right and prerogative as a citizen of a free country.
Please don't be stupid. Not on Slashdot -- it's unheard of.
He didn't make those comments in his own name. Find for me one published statement of his comments that does not identify him as the leader of OpenBSD. There are none.
When you are the leader of something, you have an obligation to act responsibly towards that which you lead. Which means thinking about the implications of things you say and do personally, because you are seen as a representative of your organization, right or wrong.
I have no more sympathy for Theo than I have for politicians or corporate leaders that lose their positions due to poor judgement in their personal lives. If you are going to accept an important position with responsibility, act the part. Don't try to weasel the benefits without accepting the responsibilities by claiming "free speech" or "privacy". If you want free speech and privacy, don't act like a celebrity
Theo seemed to me to be flaunting his apposition to the US-led war. In effect, "Look at those suckers, giving me money even though I publicly oppose them! Ha ha ha."
The fact that Theo heads OpenBSD is coincidental
It's not coincidental. It's the only reason that you have ever even heard of Theo or his political beliefs.
Some of us have the odd notion that we are the government of this country.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
If I don't like what you say and what you believe, I should have the right to disassociate myself from you. That is the price you pay for free speech. The government can't censor you or throw you in jail, but I am allowed to avoid you like the plague.
you voted for gore didn't you? (i'll admit that i did, though i thought that was the lesser of two evils).
absolute freedom (freedom of speech) should be absolute for everyone. the only exception to human freedoms should be when it interfers with another's rights (this is why the abortion issues is such a hot issue. does the fetus have rights? and if so are the mother's rights more important than the fetus?). thus, an organization should be free to employ someone and to rescind that employment if the employee speaks something they don't like.
i think it's certainly a cold harsh way of dealing with things, but... first, i'm a cold harsh bastard, and second and most important: is the job of a government really to be a playground supervisor or to protect the borders and the human rights (of its citizens) outlined in the constitutuion? to me everything else is grossly overstepping their boundaries.
There's also a few other quote:
There you have it - OpenBSD is as anti-America as Dwight Eisenhower.You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
De Raadt was reasonably certain that his comments led to the funding cuts, and he was shocked by Smith's statements.
"A tenured professor was telling me not to exercise my freedom of speech," he told The Associated Press last week.
Ok, I previously had no opinion on this topic, but now I do. Theo, learn what free speech is.
Nobody passed a law to say you can't speak. No jack booted thugs broke into your house and dragged you out of bed at 3am...
Apparently you have the Susan Sarandon / Tim Robbins concept of free speech, which is "I can say anything I want, and and NOBODY should be allowed to respond to it."
I'm not for the war either, but I'm smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds me and think I'll still be fed.
Let's just take this point by point:
1) Theo is a Canadian living and working in Canada. He doesn't have any 1st Amendment rights. His rights to free speech are entirely determined by his country of residence and to a much lesser extent, his citizenship. So where the government cutting an American professor's research funds because of comments he made on an unrelated political issue might be a 1st Amendment violation, this isn't and can't be.
2) No one has produced any evidence that Theo's comments were a factor in the cancellation of the contract, let alone a decisive factor.
3) It's not unreasonable on it's face for the Department of Defense to choose not to fund a vocal critic who is a foreigner working abroad. There's plenty of American programmers looking for work right now, and it's our tax money.
4) Theo needs to get his priorities straight. I once worked for a boss who was a religious conservative. I disagree with his views on most everything to do with religion, philosophy, and government. However, I did not choose to decorate my office with signs and images to that effect. Although I would indicate some disagreement in our conversations, I would never reveal my true views which he would have perceived as radical and threatening. That's because to me, his most important relationship to me was that of employer, not that of debating partner or anything else, and my comments would have interfered with that relationship. As long as Theo thinks that his freedom to make statements on touchy subjects is more important than the health of the OpenBSD project, this kind of thing will continue, and knowing that, he shouldn't complain.
I mean really, if a local school board member came by soliticing donations, and you knew that they had just voted to condemn free software (in the GPL sense) as "communistic" you might choose not to donate, right? I'm still boycotting Blizzard projects over b.net, so maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think people who use their freedom of action and speech should be accountable for their choices. I wouldn't be buying OpenBSD CD's from Theo, no matter how terrific it is, if he used his position to advocate white supremecy, or killing abortionists, or any one of an infinite number of such things. Whether I disagree or not, the point is, if getting money for OpenBSD is the most important thing for Theo, he's making a mistake by alienating potential donors with his speech, regardless of his right to make it.
Just for argument's sake, lets look at these last three points, because they are what directly relate to what the focus of this article is:
4. DARPA awards OpenBSD grant.
5. OpenBSD lead person mouths off about DAPRA/Pentagon.
6. DARPA cuts funding for project.
Lets do this as an analogy. Say your doorbell rings, you open the door and its someone selling candy bars to benefit some organization that they belong to. They ask you if you want to buy a candy bar, you say, "Sure, I'll take two. I'd love to support that organization." After you pull out your wallet, they start telling you how stupid you are and that you should stop doing everything that you are doing. Are you still going to buy those candy bars?
I'm not saying that DARPA was right for dropping the funding, I'm just looking at your list of events and how it kind of spells out why they would have had an interest in cutting funding.
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.
While I'm personally sympathetic to Theo de Raadt, his accusations against Jonathan Smith are a vicious slander and a lie. The reporters simply haven't done their homework -- they haven't even bothered to look at the contracting terms. Let's try looking at the facts.
We know from a note sent by Theo that DARPA made a decision to cancel this project. Theo himself confirms that the source of the funding cut was DARPA, not Smith. So that you can understand the issues, let me explain briefly how these contracts work.
The cancelled contract was originally "let" by DARPA. Jonathan Smith is the "principal investigator" (PI) for this project. A principal investigator basically has two responsibilities: (1) manage the activities required by the contract (i.e. get the job done), and (2) provide periodic reporting to the funding agency (in this case DARPA).
One of the rules with any U.S. government contract is that the government can stop work and cancel any remaining funding at any time. This is clearly stated in the applicable FARS and DFARS contracting regulations, which are a part of every contract signed with the U.S. Government, including the Department of Defense. The POSSE contract is just like any other contract: DARPA has the right to stop work on it at any time. DARPA is not required to give a reason for stopping work. Usually such actions are the results of budget changes, but cancellations can and do occur for other reasons. Theo and his team were subcontractors on this project. They knew that these were the terms when they were hired to do the job. They have reason to be unhappy, but no basis for wild accusations.
A principal investigator has no control over cancellation of funding. Theo knew the risk that his contract could be cancelled. He chose to speak out about something important to him, and he is now dealing with the consequences.
Theo is clearly he is frustrated, but there are two important points to remember:
This is not a free speech issue. It is a consequences of free speech issue. Theo spoke negatively about his employer (DARPA). DARPA cut him off. Jonathan Smith is not curtailing Theo's free speech -- in fact, Smith and Penn had no decision making power in this situation at all! DARPA is not curtailing Theo's free speech -- Theo isn't in jail or under any threat of legal consequences for his words.
Free speech doesn't mean what Theo and some irresponsible reporters might like it to mean. Free speech does not mean "speech without consequences". Free speech means you can say what you wish without being prosecuted as long as you don't actively harm someone else (e.g. by libel and slander, for example the statements that Theo has made about Smith that Theo clearly knows are false). You have the right to speak, but the people who associate with you, either personally or professionally, have the right to respond to your speech. I do not know why DARPA cancelled this contract. DARPA is not required to give a reason. I do know that their actions are completely acceptable within the terms of the contract.
It is a little puzzling to me that Theo seems to feel that it is okay to slander someone who has generously assisted the OpenBSD team in getting a large amount of funding (remember: the contract was almost complete).
It is even more puzzling to me that various newspaper editors feel that such one-sided and selective reporting of the facts constitutes responsible journalism.
But the most puzzling thing to me is why so many people appear to be lining up on the side of the slanderer, and forgetting that Jonathan Smith's role in this who
Jonathan S. Shapiro (The EROS Guy)
Well, it is entirely possible that the government didn't know about the whole "hackathon" thing until it was made public. Unless I missed something.
:-)
I might add that the way Theo has been acting is very bad form. If something is going on, it is up to the Principle Investigator (PI, the guy from UPenn) to talk to the Program Manager (PM, the guy from DARPA). Theo is NOT the PI. The PR lady from DARPA is not the PM. Clearly neither of them have the story.
Kerfuffle
Is it your position that people should be immune to the consequences of their words? The freedom of speech protected and championed by the US Constitution specifically involves forbidding the US Government the power to use force to prevent one's expression. You sir, must be speaking of some other kind of free speech. Perhaps you are confusing it with free as in beer?
By yanking OpenBSD funding, this US Government agency is not using force to prevent Theo from expressing his opinion - they are simply no longer providing him with support. When agents of the US Government storm into Canada and deny Theo of his life, liberty and property to silence him - perhaps then you might be in a better position to discuss freedom of speech.
But this isn't "people" doing it, its the government.
I mean, theoretically the government is supposed to be impartial about free speech issues. I hope you can at least see the potential danger of letting the governmen fund its own viewpoint and punish conflicting ones when its viewpoint is supposed to be "determined by the majority".
What's next? Double taxation for people who vote for the losing candidate?
Since we know that Microsoft was instrumental in killing the NSA's secure Linux, why are de Raadt et al nearly certain that they lost DARPA support over a little exercise in free speech?
It is a great shame that DARPA is withdrawing support for secure operating systems. I am sorely disappointed that IT in the US is condemned to monthly critical vulnerabilities in glibc, IIS, kernels, etc. DARPA would be more reasonable in stipulating that no money be used for encryption development/research at this point.
Government: you are very expensive; justify your high costs.