Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Operating Systems BSD

More on OpenBSD Funding Saga 448

Posted by michael from the as-the-wheel-turns dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More on OpenBSD Funding Saga More

More on OpenBSD Funding Saga

Comments Filter:

  • Good thinking Bush Administration! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jay-be-em ( 664602 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:17AM (#5788417) Homepage
    This is a smart idea. If BSD is dead.. Terrorism is dead.
    Props to the administration for this revolutionary terror fighting tactic!
    • If you outlaw openBSD then only outlaws will have openBSD.

      Naw they'll just get a mac instead. That's BSD too. and Darwin is open source to boot.

    • 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.

        Well, there hasn't been any atomic or biological attacks from Iraq on the USA has there???

        Then again, it could be that the rock that keeps tigers away, also works on military attacks... And my rock is much less expensive ;-) .

  • At least now (Score:3, Funny)

    by tmark ( 230091 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:20AM (#5788430)
    noone will have to worry about any potential conflicts between de Raadt's political beliefs and his taking of the DARPA money !

  • No Big Deal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pave Low ( 566880 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:20AM (#5788436) Journal
    I don't see what the big hullabaloo is here. This is free what a free country is all about. We can support or not support somebody for whatever reason we wish. If don't don't want to fund slashdot because I think it's a POS, that's fine right? If I don't like some actor's lefty pinko politics, and don't see his movies, where's the harm in that? Freedom of speech also means that you must live with the consequences people not liking it or you for it.

    But on slashdot, every action or inaction seems to be freedom of speech/censorship issue, and it's not.

    • Freedom of speech also means that you must live with the consequences people not liking it or you for it.

      It's the DoD's money (well actually it's mine and your's ;-), and they can choose to fund whomever they want. I'm wondering if they are thinking of just diverting the funds to a private interest and never releasing the results into the public domain. Ah well, what are you going to do, right? Just write your local representative if you don't agree, not posting messages of how pissed-off you are here. Bu
    • Of course, research grants get canceled and it's not so exciting. But in this particular case... Reading the mails in OpenBSD's mailing lists, they are pulling the carpet under developers feet. Seems to me they are backing down from earlier promises and acting stupid. Everything was ready for hackathlon... My favourite post [theaimsgroup.com] for explaining why this is important.
    • We can support or not support somebody for whatever reason we wish.

      and

      Freedom of speech also means that you must live with the consequences people not liking it or you for it.

      But on slashdot, every action or inaction seems to be freedom of speech/censorship issue, and it's not.

      Moderation total: 0, Flamebait.

      We seem to have a huge problem practicing what we post around here.
    • We can support or not support somebody for whatever reason we wish.

      WE can, yes. But our government (and its agencies such as DARPA) has to justify their decisions, lest they be guilty of violating the law.

    • Re:No Big Deal (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      I don't see what the big hullabaloo is here.

      The part of the story that troubles me is the scorched-Earth aspect to UPenn's action, and more importantly, why they're doing it. UPenn is already committed to 80% of the hotel bill, and nothing can change that. Nobody is demanding that UPenn or the government fund the hackathon beyond what they have already spent.

      Technically, UPenn is the entity that is taking the active, aggressive measure of destroying this already-paid-for asset (the hotel reservation)

  • Is there hope for Open Source? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:23AM (#5788451)
    After a ton of comments on this issue, where are we really?

    Theo has said in the past "we do this for us, if you like it buy a CD and we'll keep doing it". Then it became "we got some funding, we're doing it more, isn't that great?". Now with the grant getting canceled by UPENN/DARPA (which only affects the Hackfest/Security Conference/beerfest albeit the most productive source of progress), where does it go from here?

    Like it or not, this is the great capitalist dream, make a better product and soon people will beat a path to your door with $ to encourage you to do it more.

    But there needs to be more support. How about if you make a post, also send the OpenBSD project a donation or buy a CD? That way the entire movement can profit. I know if I were not able to use OpenSSH I would be most sorry.

  • misc@openbsd.org (Score:4, Funny)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:25AM (#5788466) Homepage
    To watch the unfolding events it worth subscribing to misc@openbsd.org. See http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html for details to subscribe

    Rus
  • 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 i

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • this is the umpteenth time.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Submarine ( 12319 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:29AM (#5788496) Homepage
    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.)
    • A little offtopic from the parent, but..

      Last year when I was in high school all out of state trips associated with school events were banned due to "recent world events." Going to the debate tournament in the Dayton area of Ohio was OK but going ~25-40 miles north into Michigan was not OK. We were about 5 mins. or less away from the MI/OH border. They later removed the ban months after all of the tournaments we wanted to go to that were out of state had finished.

  • Damn, it was confirmed (Score:3, Informative)

    by IIRCAFAIKIANAL ( 572786 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:31AM (#5788506) Journal
    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?

    • 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 know what I said was contradictory to the ideals of OSS. But just the same, it's too bad that someone can screw over OSS and then use it anyway - but that's what we signed on for and we have to live with it.

        What I mean is, it's almost personal how OSS was screwed, but we can't get personal back. That's probably a good thing seeing as we can do stupid shit when we're emotional.

        In any case, you are absolutely right - I was just ranting so take it with a grain of salt :)

    • Re:Damn, it was confirmed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:59AM (#5788695)
      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.

      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:

      Ammendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.billofrights.html

      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.

      • He was punished for sharing his opinions. This encourages people in the future to not share their opinions. He wasn't morally opposed to taking the money.

        I didn't say that his first amendment rights were violated. It doesn't really matter though. He is Canadian (lives in the same city as me) and thus doesn't fall under the US constitution.

        You have a good point though, so I won't debate it further (it was a rant, what do you expect :). I doubt the US govt would fund a guy that said he wanted to develop a w

  • So... (Score:4, Funny)

    by borgdows ( 599861 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:33AM (#5788519)
    ...maybe Theo should ask French government to fund OpenBSD ;)

  • DARPA may share the base responsibility, but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by HappyOscar ( 65200 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:33AM (#5788520) Homepage
    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.

    --
    • Universities live and breathe government grants. If your grant administrator said "shut this project down, and don't do anything to enable it to continue", what would *you* do?
      -russ
    • IANAL but this strikes me as where Theo might be able to create a lawsuit for bad faith negotiation. If he can get the hotel to indicate they are not excepting payment on UPenn's instructions its going to be very hard for UPenn to argue their position in court. They indicated this event would take place other people incurred costs based on that promise... IMHO they lose the lawsuit easily.
    • I don't think it was "childish" on the part of Penn, I think they were following explicit instructions from DARPA who "encouraged" them to disallow the 'security-fest' funded by the grant. This is documented in one of the articles above. My guess is that some DARPA PHB heard "Canadian liberal", "anti-war rants", "60 different countries" and most damningly of all the phrase "hack-a-thon" and put 2 and 2 together and got 5. Think of all the connotations - DARPA funding a project that sort of appears to be

  • How is this a "freedom" issue? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @07:38AM (#5788556)
    Admittedly, I've only been following this topic with a few cursory glances at the articles, but I'm confused about how this is becoming a freedom issue. The OpenBSD Journal article plugs the Daily Pennsylvanian as "founded by Ben Franklin (an American who strongly advocated free speech and open discovery of ideas)" Seems to me it's useless to make that parenthetical statement unless you're trying to make a point. The post to the OpenBSD list about the "capable city states" mentions that the ACLU might be getting involved.

    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.

    • "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."

      Redirecting money for research projects based on the political views of those carrying them out, though, is a different kettle of fish.

      Phil
      • But the government WASN'T funding Theo and Co. They were sending the money off to Mr. Smith at U Penn and he was redirecting the money in question. The fact is that DARPA money cannot directly fund work outside the US so this method was being used.

        Who knows? Maybe U Penn was getting a little sloppy with their accounting and it get yanked because of that.
        • "DARPA money cannot directly fund work outside the US so this method was being used."

          Believe me, I know.

          I'm not sure that its relevant though. This is
          an accounting fiction. If DARPA are removing
          grants based on political views, even if this
          is being done remotely its a problem. For that
          matter if U Penn, are doing then same, its
          a problem.

          Now, of course, this is different from saying
          that its unexpected, or unusual. But its
          still a problem.

          Phil
        • But the government WASN'T funding Theo and Co.

          It's a bit stronger than that: federal law specifically prohibits funding foreign projects such as Theo's.

          They were sending the money off to Mr. Smith at U Penn and he was redirecting the money in question. The fact is that DARPA money cannot directly fund work outside the US so this method was being used.

          From the reference to "DARPA review", I wonder if someone at DARPA objected to this redirection? UPenn's redirection certainly violates the spirit, if not

          • "UPenn's redirection certainly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of these rules: the funding is supposed to fund work within the US."

            Large parts of DARPA's research programme would collapse if they actually did things this way. There are too many researchers who do not live in the US, who they rely on.

            Phil
      • Not I think its a good thing but I'm not sure that constitutionally its a different kettle of fish. AFAIK there is nothing preventing, and in fact it is common practice for the government to fund projects with certain political orientations and not others. The arguments over PBS funding or WPA artist associations occured at the highest levels and were explicitly about political views (role of sexuality in society, and role of organized labor respectively).
    • 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?
    • Consider:
      • de Raadt is not an American
      • He didn't make his statements in the United States

      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

    • They didn't censure him.

      They cancelled funding for a project he was working on. That looks like censure to me.

  • 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 eve
    • Terrorists can't afford windows, and those that can are easy to hack into

      I can already imagine Osama bin Laden in his cave, scratching his head about how he can afford the license for his Windows laptop. Even a cold-bloded terrorist has *some* sense of good conduct, and always licenses his software legally. It might mean a few less bombs or kalashnikovs, but what the heck.

  • You can't buy publicity like this... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Psarchasm ( 6377 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @08:19AM (#5788845) Homepage Journal
    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."
  • 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 conside

  • ... it doesn't automatically remove packets with the evil bit turned on.

  • 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 n
  • 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.)

  • Theo's comments on free speech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The AtomicPunk ( 450829 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @09:27AM (#5789290)
    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.

    • 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...

      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.

      No, that's not smart at all... It's quite a bad thing. Heard of chilling effect?

      The threat of cutting off funding, due to political views, is nearly as bad as having someone ship you off to camp X-Ray. Who is going to say the war is bad, if they know that they will be g

  • Eggs and Chickens (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blunte ( 183182 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @10:05AM (#5789641)
    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.

  • DARPA Funding Removal (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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

  • Move along, no problems here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moebius_4d ( 26199 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @10:11AM (#5789693) Journal
    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.

    • Theo is a Canadian living and working in Canada. He doesn't have any 1st Amendment rights.

      Interesting that the US Constitution says that congress (and by extension any agency that is funded by a vote in congress) cannot abridge freedom of speech. It does not say "but only for US citizens". According to the Constitution, the speech itself is protected no matter who says it.

      I once worked for a boss who was a religious conservative. I disagree with his views on most everything to do with religion, philos

    • 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.

      Well let us see... A professor from UPENN told Theo not to speak his mind, and the "routine" audit that found the money to be wasted, started two days after his comments were publised. That's not definitve proof, but it's pretty good evidence in the real world. In addition, the fact they they were taking a scortched-earth approach, wasting 80%, rather than allowing Theo

  • Childish move (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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 c

  • DARPA cancelled, U. Penn is making it worse (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    DARPA is the one cancelling the remainder of the grant but the people at U. Penn. are going out of their way to screw the OpenBSD developers. According to the article, they are making calls to the hotel trying to cancel the reservations, even though they KNOW they can't get their money back.

    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") [cam.ac.uk]

  • Theo is Slandering Smith (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jonathan S. Shapiro ( 321593 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @10:51AM (#5790123) Homepage

    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 [theaimsgroup.com] 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:

    1. Neither Jonathan Smith nor the University of Pennsylvania have broken their contract with Theo, and
    2. Jonathan Smith has absolutely no control over DARPA's decision to terminate the POSSE project.

    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

  • Flaming and being childish will only hurt OSS

    Please bear in mind, dude, that you are posting this on slashdot...

  • worries about "capable nation-states" (Score:3, Funny)

    by Orbital Sander ( 237340 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @11:24AM (#5790501) Homepage
    We're afraid of Canada now?

  • Classic CYA for UPenn (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sbwoodside ( 134679 ) <sbwoodside@yahoo.com> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @05:03PM (#5794348) Homepage
    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.

    - UPenn wants to keep getting government money
    - UPenn just lost $2.1 mil ... that's a lot!
    - 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

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close