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.
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.)
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."
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.
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.