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.
This is a smart idea. If BSD is dead.. Terrorism is dead.
Props to the administration for this revolutionary terror fighting tactic!
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
noone will have to worry about any potential conflicts between de Raadt's political beliefs and his taking of the DARPA money !
The US gave OpenBSD a grant. OpenBSD made anti-US comments. US pulled OpenBSD funding.
Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Microsoft gives George Bush money.
George Bush becomes President
George Bush scraps/tones down DoJ action
US Goverment cuts funding for open source projects.
Microsoft announced as "key partner" for homeland security.
Maybe we should all just donate money towards George's $130m bribe... sorry "campaign" fund.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
::How many successfull terrorist acts have ::occured on US soil since 9/11
Howm any successfull terrist acts have occured on GERMAN soil since 9/11 WITHOUT homeland security? ZERO.
Howm any successfull terrist acts have occured on US soil since in the year before 9/11 WITHOUT homeland security? ZERO.
Your statistics base is too weak.
Its a good thing internet came in to being 30 yrs ago. Right about now, it wouldnt have got past these "patriots".
Wish these guys could find some Private funding. Its not a whole lot of money for someone with a lot of moolah and a little respect to this budding, small and secure Operating system. Maybe Mr. Gates would do it as a token of support to the OSS efforts and who knows get himself some less facetime with Mr. Devil in Hell.
Whatever it may be, this is becoming more like a nation where free speech is being shot down from every corner of the administration. When names of anti-bush liberals and advocates of free speech end up on the "No-Fly" lists at airports for no fault of theirs, what more can you expect from an agency who gets their money from the military coffers.
I hope someone would step in and make the hackothon happen.
Rapid Nirvana
You can say what you want as long as you are not of the Goverments dime.... Why is a Canut shocked that US money has been pulled from the OBSD project when he could not keep quite? I realy wanted US Gov. money to go into OBSD it would have given me some ammo to use when speaking on oss.
projects @ http://spectechnologies.net
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.)
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?
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As Bismarck once said about governments, "Nothing is confirmed until officially denied."
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
...maybe Theo should ask French government to fund OpenBSD ;)
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.
--
"Your mouse has been moved. Windows 95 must be restarted for the change to take effect."
he actually was able to create an account before posting.
why run from Vincenzo?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Jonathan Smith also probably had something to do with the decision
Johnny Smith?!?! It must have been a very terrible vision....
Was anyone really comfortable with Theo et al accepting funds from the U.S. government with their prior stance on crypto?
I know I wasn't.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
... is that slashdot dosen't have edit, so I can fix DARPA instead of DARP. Sorry
Maybe I'm just not up to date on the Bill of Rights, but I don't see anything that says the government is requied to foot the bill for all research projects. It's not like DARPA is saying "Work on OpenBSD again, and we'll ship you off to Guantanamo Bay and hold you as an enemy combatant". Nor are they saying "Hold your Hackathon, and we'll make sure you get visisted by the FBI". All they're saying is they're not going to foot the bill. Sure, the reasons they give may be stupid, and counter-productive, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says the government has to be smart.
Don't get me wrong - I think the way it's being handled is terrible. It sucks for them to cancel hotel rooms for people with non-refundable tickets (unless the university was paying for or subsidizing those rooms - then they have every right to do that). It sucks that it was done at the last minute. It sucks that DARPA was not initially forthcoming with information about this. It sucks that it's cancelled for stupid reasons. However none of this was ever guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Even the "anti-war" statement issue isn't really a first ammendment problem. The government did not prevent Theo from making those statements. They did not throw him in jail for making those statements. They didn't censure him. If indeed his statements are the cause of the funding loss, it may be underhanded, but it's not unconstitutional. The government cannot prevent you from expressing your displeasure with its activities, however they are under no obligation to pay you while you're doing it.
Now, maybe I'm missing a critical piece of information. Maybe the government really did say to Theo "If you work on OpenBSD, with or without our money, you go to jail". If so, then you bet your ass that's a Constitutional issue. But I don't think that's the case. It's unfortunate that people cry "First Ammendment" every time the government does something that they don't like. That only serves to discredit the folks who actually have suffered due to First Ammendment violations.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
on FOSS from last year
Ah well, I guess the illusion of security is more
important than actuall security...
You'd think from the comments on here George Bush personally went out and shot all members of the OpenBSD team.
It's funding. It's free. OpenBSD is not entitled to it, it's a gift.
OpenBSD existed before this gift, and will exist after it. Isn't the great thing about open source that it's developed as a hobby and not dependent on dollars?
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
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
I know sometimes you open source zealots get outta hand so I'm gonna have to step in and stop this. Open source is generally okay but why in the world would anybody make an open source Blue Screen of Death?
We can't have a free, stable, mature, secure, cryptographic operating system around because
Terrorists can't afford windows, and those that can are easy to hack into
But if we gave them a free system that can't be hacked into, then we're in deep doo-doo.
What this really means is that we are admitting that a criminal could use a tool more effectively than 'the good guys', so we should prevent anyone from having a good tool.
But, while the funding is a boost, its loss certianly isn't a show stopper, or even a show slower.
-Adam
Bush & co. have always been a gang of marionettes. The question is, who is behind their acts right now??
I guess everybody is thinking in the same corporation...
I think it's funny ... but on any Topic / Article on slashdot ... if BSD comes up ... so do the trolls. Like in this article there is like a higher ratio of trolls then there is usefull info ...
Go BSD posts ... slashdot needs some more
Solosoft.org - Your Online Resource to Nothing
Naw they'll just get a mac instead. That's BSD too. and Darwin is open source to boot.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
And if so, then the contract almost certainly states that it can be cancelled at any time, for any reason. Nobody is special, everyone is treated the same. You don't deliver, they fire you. You waste money, they fire you. If they don't like your shoes, they fire you. And yes, if you are being a real pain in the ass bitch about your politics, they fire you. Simple as that.
If I hire a plumber, and it turns out he is a klepto, then I want him out of my house. It has nothing to do with plumbing, but it is my money, and I will spend it how I want.
But that was probably not the point at all. If the "security fest" portion of the task was just a silly conference, junket, or other government-funded paid vacation, then I'm glad it was cancelled. There are things that need money more.
The corporate track:
"So secure, the US Militiary is afraid to fund it."
The foreign government track:
"Empowering nations with secure computing."
The 31337 track:
"Use the OS the governement doesn't want you to."
http://windows.scares.us
people will hate anything easily enough, that's not a difficult weed to cultivate.
From what I have read, DARPA is saying that they don't want to have advanced cryto technologies out there free for the bad guys to use. This is what they mean when they talk about "capable nation states". Basically they don't want to give this capability to spies or terrorists when a large part of the war on terrorism is intercepting and cracking the communications between terrorist cells. This is probably the same reason OpenBSD is based in Canada anyway; to aviod the US ban on exporting advanced cryptography. Might there be some bad feelings about Theo's statments? Perhaps, but that is not the reason that was stated for the cancellation of the grant.
Isn't it a tad vain for De Raadt and the community in general to think that his every utterance is taken in by DARPA? Do you really think DARPA is scouring the globe for De Raadt's opinion? The cancellation happened too fast for it to be a reaction to his comments. Government in the US doesn't work that fast. More likely that with Bush's proposed cuts, the $80 Bil now set aside for Iraq, and the down economy all made the govn't look for money to cut across the board? Giving money to an OSS project isn't exactly high on the priority list for the govn't, and education is far too often the first program cut. Sorry to splash some cold water on everyone's persecution/conspiracy theories. Theo sounds more and more like someone who wants to be a victim so this will validate his views on govn't and the US in general.
My reaction to this is somewhat akin to a sentiment expressed a very large, very incomprehensible Cimmerian, circa the Hyborean Age (a.k.a. 1982), to his god.
Something along the lines of:
"To hell with you! I'll do it myself!"
While government money would have made a massive contribution towards the project, and the cash will be sorely missed, if DARPA wants to take their ball and go home, FUCK THEM.
This isn't going to stop the development of OpenBSD. Hell, it isn't even going to slow it down (because they'll still be proceeding at the same pace they were prior to this grant nonsense).
So OpenBSD will continue to evolve. And the government can go kiss Theo's situpon.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Removing funding from a security project due to the low cost of the OS system as an excuse that errorist might get it seems highley suspect..
Let me explain why..
Terrorist are not look for those OS systems in which the US gov has access to code or eaves droping capabilities..ie in other words they are avoiding windowsOSes when they can in the first place and thus removing funding does nto affect their choice in any appreciable way.
While at the same time our biggest 'enemy' according to Pentagon is considered to be China..and China is schedule to code their own Linux OS..
If DARPA was really concenred with terrorist states getting secuirty technology from any BSD they could have limited the grant to US citizens only..and of course they did not do this action.
The favt remains that DARPA is so far behind security on OS systems that they are running scared rather than operate with knowledge..
The actual tools to defeat terrorism happen to be taking care of disadvantage pople to make sure that their human and civilization needs are met. Once US starts doign that as foregin policy rather than military flexing its muscles via their own short sighted economic interest we thenb have a lowering in terrorist threats and incidents.
Don't Tread on OpenSource
... it doesn't automatically remove packets with the evil bit turned on.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This isn't about Microsoft, govt. corruption, or open-source, this is about not sh*tting where you eat.
Maybe the "world event" that DARPA was referring to was the event where Theo shot his mouth off about the war while taking money from the defence department. No one is curtailing Theo's speech, they're curtailing his funding.
Although the US seems a little 1984 these days, I'm still glad that our government agencies aren't paying people to make fools of them. I wasn't for the war either. . . but if my needed funding came from the defense department I would have thought twice about openly criticizing them in public forums without having other funding waiting in the wings.
The truth hurts. Get over it.
Aren't there some non-Microsoft hitech billionaires
that can give OpenBSD 2 million bucks?
(Mitch Kapor seems to have the right idea
with the Open Source Applications Foundation.)
Why on earth does it make sense for statements made in a foreign country by an alien, to whom the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are not reasonably expected to apply?
The FBI certainly shouldn't be coming to the "hackathon", since it was to take place in Calgary, which, the last I heard, wasn't within FBI jurisdiction.
It doesn't make sense for the FBI to be able to arrest him; they aren't even in the same country. Again, Calgary isn't within FBI jurisdiction.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
The last time I looked, Canada was still a sovereign nation. But that was over a week ago.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
I for one am still not convinced that this is anything more than general DARPA/government flakiness in choosing and funding research projects.
Regardless of why the funding didn't happen, it still makes the US look bad, since at least among geeks this was very interesting news.
GET YOUR WEAPONS READY! --DR.LIGHT
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.
If you look at the quote with a bit more context: "...evolving threat posed by increasingly capable nation-states...", I think it is clear that they are referring to states like North Korea becoming more of a threat by increasing their nuclear weapons capability.
One could argue with the use of the term nation-states. Generally, nation refers to an ethnic group and state refers to a goverment. A nation-state is when the two combine: France is both the land of the French and a goverment. It is an open question if there is or was an Iraqi nation as opposed to a Kurdish nation, etc., and an Iraqi state.
Maybe they shouldn't have spent money that wasn't in their hands yet...
It's ok to complain about the cancellation of funding, and it's even ok to be mad at DARPA, but it's not ok to blame them for your expenses.
If you spent money before they paid you, you were foolish.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Perhaps I'm missing something here but the last reasonable explanation I read on this was that DARPA pulled the funding because the money was being funnelled to a non-US organization. The rules of the grant were that it was to fund research in the US. The university was being used to launder the grant money so that it could be sent to a non-US location.
Sounds to me that:
1. Theo de Raadt shot his mouth off on at least 2 things:
a. His opinion of the war; and
b. Who was supplying the funding.
2. DARPA pulled the money because it was being misappropriated by UPENN per 1.b above.
You may not like the results but DARPA does appear to be in the right.
BTW - I do live in Canada and I am buying a BSD CD.
They cancelled funding for a project he was working on. That looks like censure to me.
Finding God in a Dog
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.
sheesh, note to self, slashdot readers have no humor in the mornings.
It was intended to be funny.
Right now, it's +1 funny, -3 overrated. Holy crap.
sig?
Why did DARPA fund OpenBSD in the first place? Chances are pretty good it wasn't because they liked Theo. Probably wasn't because they agreed with his views. People just don't dump millions of dollars around because of warm feelings. Clearly it saw a degree of merit in OpenBSD's development, and saw a need for an OS as secure as OpenBSD.
Now how does Theo's dislike of bombs decrease the need for a secure OS? Screw this "biting the hand that feeds you" stuff. Yes, that's the case here, but talk about childish! Theo's work is in the best interest of DARPA, otherwise they never would have funded it to begin with. Regardless of his personal views, his work remains relevant and should be treated as such.
Just think about this. Would Microsoft dump support for Intel because Intel's CEO likes broccoli and Gates can't stand it? No? Then what's the difference here? Oh yes, granted, Theo's comments hit a little closer to home than the broccoli argument, but chances are pretty decent that MS and Intel could slander the living crap out of each other and never see a dime's difference in cash flow. Why? Because they need each other, just like DARPA has need of OpenBSD.
IMHO, this cutting of funding is "deeply stupid."
Who said anything about OpenBSD enabling terrorism? Only the BSD team did. The DARPA quote simply said that it had priorities elsewhere and couldn't fund the BSD team. Let's see, Bush reduced the tax cut. The government has to pay for the war. Thus, the government needs to reduce it's debt somehow. How? Cut funding to unneccessary projects. DARPA considered this an unnecessary project.
Would you be ok with things if your employer lost a bid just because you don't like dogs - and the customer likes dogs?
I think not. What do you think your employer would do? Wouldn't that - in effect - restrict what you can and cannot say in the future?
it's in my head
The principal investigator of the grant is Prof. Jonathan Smith at U. Penn. This guy has been DEEP in bed with the spooks and with DARPA for years now. You may remember him as the guy who invented TCPA ("Palladium").
He's also a millionaire and he has his own company called iPrivacy. , which makes technology that claims to give online consumers privacy from web retailers (but at the same time allows the feds to monitor the transactions). Quoting from their website:
He's also on the board of advisors for other companies including Pinpoint Inc., which according to their page:
On the one hand he's marketing privacy technology that will supposedly protect consumers from retailers who want to profile and track their customer's behavior, on the other hand he's a technical advisor to a company doing just that.Ultimately, a professor who brings millions and millions of dollars of DoD grants into the U. Penn CIS department can pretty much do what he wants there, including using the money in his own private enterprises, as long as the technology he sells can be circumvented by the feds.
Just more proof that unless you are absolutely like them, even in your thinking that you wont get anywhere. Isn't that just sick?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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)
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Please bear in mind, dude, that you are posting this on slashdot...
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
We're afraid of Canada now?
What Would the Fab Five Do?
The issue is thornier than that when you consider that Federal spending makes up more than 25% of the US Gross Domestic Product. It should be obvious what kind of tax burden we bear to support that kind of spending. If all Federal spending was directed by the political whims of individual agents, we might feel as if the fruits of our labors were being stripped from us to fund things we dissagree with. That is a state also known as slavery.
That said, it's hard to dissagree with the reasons Theo claims got the project canned. Saying silly things like, "I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built." in a public paper will get you canned from a military project. A statement like that is half a nothing away from advocating sabotage at plants building weapons. You might expect that military projects would require the loyalty or at least prohibit active resistance. You might also imagine the kind of problems this statement would have created for Theo's advocates inside the DARPA administration.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Maybe it wasn't WHAT he said, but HOW he said it?
That he may have insulted the wrong DARPA official with an off-the-cuff remark?
Never assume devious political motives when the mechanations of government egos provides a simpler explanation.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The last time I looked, Canada was still a sovereign nation. But that was over a week ago.
Will we go after Terrance and Phillip? Will their farting be classified as WMD?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does any one think that this could be a repercussion of the release of SELinux. I know that it's a bit of a reach, but M$ has quite a bit of political clout and could have lobbied for a reduction in the gov't funding of competitive projects. This would, of course, be a closed door deal.
For those that didn't read the article, and have formed their opinions based solely on the ideologically tinted glasses that Theo is handing out, here are some quotes:
However, University spokeswoman Phyllis Holtzman said that "de Raadt is seriously mischaracterizing the circumstances of this situation."
Those who have followed some of Theo's more memorable threads in various development lists know that while he is an excellent coder and project manager, he does have the reputation of constructing molehills just so he can make mountains out of them.
DARPA spokeswoman Jan Walker also debunked de Raadt's claims and said that the openBSD project was canceled as part of the agency's "normal review process."
Looking at the posts here and elsewhere, you would think that this is the first time that the US Government has ever cancelled a contract. But that is not so. It happens several times a year to hundreds of contractors. Some of these contractors are huge Miltiary Industrial Complex veterans.
Walker explained that the funding cancelation was actually "due to world events and the evolving threat posed by increasingly capable nation states," and was not a response to the thoughts of an individual.
I have no idea what "increasingly capable nation states" means, but it's clear that it has nothing to do with Theo's public comments.
While the research was nearly finished, the termination still affects the project significantly, as it has forced the cancelation of a "hackathon" scheduled for next month... We advised Penn about suspending the 'security fest' [hackathon] portion of the project.
If you were a DARPA reviewer would you not be concerned about a "hackathon"? Don't think like a hacker, think like a stuffed shirt. This doesn't sound like a clash of political viewpoints, it sounds like a clash of cultures.
Reading the whole article, it seems clear to me that the project was not cancelled because Theo published some anti-war statements. We still don't know the exact reasons, but we need not resort to baseless speculation and paraoid delusions to make a reasonable guess.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Common sense in the USA is dying.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
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.
CNN BreakingNews: Theo De Raadt, a reknown Canadian programmer and system engineer openly criticized DARPA for providing him with over 2 million dollars in grant money. He expressed his deep concerns that such a war-mongering agency would give him money for his peaceful project.
iThink iHate iMod
But I would be surprised to find out that a DARPA grant was the same as a contract. In either case though, you should have clear terms stating when and how much would be paid. That would help your planning, but you certainly shouldn't count on it and spend it in advance (especially in advance of the first payment).
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Under Saddam any Iraqi who wanted a job in his
Stalinist centrally planned economy (about
half the work force) had to
support him and the Baath Party.
But now they are liberated. They have a new boss.
They can say anthing they want. Right?
There are thousands of research projects that are
funded by the military even though they have
no discernable military application (and even
if they did, the results are published and
available to anyone in the world).
I have benefited from these myself
(quantum field theories in two-dimensional spacetime).
Academics have long been uncomfortable with
accepting funding channeled through the
military (rather than relatively independent
civilian agencies) because of the potential
to reward supporters and punish critics
of the military industrial complex.
I am appalled at the number of people posting
here who are OK with this.
If I were to go to the customer and tell them that I thought they were wrong for liking dogs
That does not fit with what Theo did.
it's in my head
That's "cover your ass" ... UPenn is the party "at fault" in the eyes of DARPA (I'm speculating of course) because they are the ones who farmed out the work to a rowdy anti-war Canadian. So what happens at UPenn when the canuck mouths off to the press? All too predictable. Think about it.
... that's a lot!
...)
- UPenn wants to keep getting government money
- UPenn just lost $2.1 mil
- UPenn decides to totally overreact so that they can go back to the government later and say they had no idea, they would never condone such a thing, etc., etc. etc.
In other words, UPenn pulls a CYA. They don't want anything to do with Theo anymore. They pull extreme prejudice in cutting him off just to prove to the Feds how much they were shocked, shocked, to find that Theo de Raat was so outspoken (please
So, yeah, sure, blame the DARPA, but blame UPenn for being deliberately ungraceful in order to curry DARPA favour.
simon
home page
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OK. DARPA has concerns that OpenBSD is too good and that the not so nice crowd may be using it. Definitely not black helicopters over UofPenn with SpecOps folks in the bushes eavesdropping on Theo's Canadian socialist drivel. Still more evidence for the UFO landing at Roswell than the DARPA conspiracy against Theo.
Now, for the ultimate test. All the little zit poppers out there that are mouthing off about 'free speech' need to go to their MacDonald's shift manager and tell him/her to "F* OFF!! @$$Hole!!!" really loud in front of some customers to get a real world lesson in free speech.
Reality sucks. Deal with it
And your point is?
Of course DARPA knew where the money was going. And if it was Theo's comments that prompted the termination of the grant, which has yet to be demonstrated, then the sole and only point I am making with respect to his nationality and country of residence/employment is that there cannot be a 1st Amendment violation, as there might be were a similar action to be taken with a U.S. citizen or resident.
Just read your DVD-Bounty idea. It's very interesting, but has some problems.
First, you'd need some lawyer to make sure that there are not some other laws that might overlap, and make breaking the CSS illegial. There is a much larger chance of that then you might think.
Second, the reverse engineering of CSS would have to happen outside of the USA, and probably not in an EU member country either. (Send engineers into international waters to encrypt DVDs?)
Third, each DVD only uses one CSS key, so you would need multilpe DVDs, with different keys.
Finally, it may be illegial to bring some product which used any of the CSS keys, into the USA. The keys might be protected under trade-secret laws, or something similar.
Even if the above work out, it might make posession of dvd-css legal, but it would probably still be illegial to play any other DVDs that you don't have permission from the copyright holders.
Interesting idea though, I just think the only real solution is for laws to change. Of course, I'm no lawyer, and you definately need one for something this complicated, and borderline illegial.
Speaking of France, I wonder if they allow encrypted DVDs... The DVD players could be considered encryption/decryption devices.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If the gov funded this project after his comments then the tax payers would want justification for why we support someone like that. Also the untraditional uses (beer drinking, code hacking sessions, as someone mentioned) of such funding may raise questions. Not that there is anything wrong with such sessions. If the gov pulls funding they look bad, and the conspiracy theories fly. They couldn't win on this one... I wish Theo and the OpenBSD project the best of luck, maybe it is for the best if he was so uneasy about taking the money from them. OpenBSD is backed by a stellar developer community and will pull through. Government funding may not be in the cards with a project that thrives on the heterogeneous development community that must support it. Governments (rightfully) must be accountable to their tax payers. Please remember, not everything the US gov (or any for that matter) is a conspiracy in the making!
An individual has the freedom to associate guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Government does not have to freedom for it to associate guaranteed. Government must act as a neutral actor and ignore any and all behavior that are legal but distasteful to itself.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah well, I once got -1 offtopic, -1 redundant, -2 overrated. how is a total score of -1 overrated???
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
I have no specific knowledge of this project, DARPA funding, or Theo but I have always found there to be an interesting conflict within the federal government concerning encryption, secure operating systems, and open source. It is the federal government's job to provide for national defense. However, there are two fundamentally different ideas about how to do this.
The first group are always looking for ways to increase the ability of regular citizens and businesses to provide for their own defense. Thus, these people welcome secure operating systems that are available to a wide range of people and which are understood by many. They recognize that the federal government cannot and should not be trying to secure every corporation, every church, every home, and every fast food restaurant from attack by terrorists, foreign armies, and international organized crime groups. These people realize the necessity for a distributed systems approach to national defense.
There is another group of people within the federal government who view national defense as providing for the defense of the federal government. As such they do not want regular citizens or anyone, other than the federal government to have access to encryption products or secure operating systems. They want the capability to monitor all communications, retrieve and review any data they want, and deny people the ability to organize in private. In their view, by keeping the federal government strong and in power the nation is safe and secure.
I am sure there are people within DARPA that fall into both categories. I imagine they have some heated debates on what projects to fund. From looking at the web page (http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~dsl/POSSE) it seems that the POSSE project would appeal to the first group and not to the second.
Stuart Eichert