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
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.
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
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."
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.
I'm sorry, since when is receiving a research contract a "state benefit"? People around here seem to be confusing DARPA with a charity!
If I had to say, I'd have to guess that this whole kerfuffle is over issues of export compliance. Like it or not, DARPA is part of the DoD is is obliged to deal with all of those (yes, very stupid) ITAR rules. My company has quite a number of DARPA contracts and we have to file these silly "export complaince" forms for every foreign national (non-citizen/green-card holder) that works on a contract. As a US citizen, I had to sign some form saying I understood what could and could not be exported.
Now, directly funneling money to a bunch of unknowns working on crypto technology in Canada is going to look pretty darn funny to a lot of people in DoD and congress. I'm not arguing that it's right or wrong, but DARPA is NOT going to capriciously break the rules that they have to operate under, that's just how it is.
All this whining about what they "should" and "should not do" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. DARPA/DoD is not some church with high moral principles: they are a bureaucracy just like the IRS, the NSF, your state government, or your local school or college and you can't expect them to behave any differently.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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?