DARPA Grant Cancelled for OpenBSD and U-Penn? 653
Starrider writes "It seems the DARPA grant for OpenBSD and for University of Pennsylvania has been cancelled (?) immediately and without warning. See the full story in Theo's email and on deadly.org." Theo is left to only speculate why funding was suddenly pulled. One also has to wonder what this means for the University of Pennsylvania, since they were also in for a piece of the pie.
couple things (Score:5, Interesting)
Something else that ought to be looked at is the Microsoft angle -- in the past they've put pressure on public institutions to avoid supporting open source projects and instead invest in the "free" market. in this particular climate, of jingoism and nationalism, how hard would it be for them to target OpenBSD as a Canadian, anti-capitalist movement, and then to shove a couple hundred copies of IIS under DARPA's nose?
But, then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the nature of the grant. It is quite possible that DARPA was funding it specifically because of the non-proprietary nature of the software.
My guess? We'll never know the whole story. (But, I've been wrong before. I used to think Enterprise had promise.)
A few speculations (Score:5, Interesting)
* TIA would be seriously hampered if everyone is very secure
* fear of technology leak into other countries
* other acts of "head-in-ass"
Obvious explaination: (Score:2, Interesting)
For all Theo has done for the OpenBSD, and open-source movements, I think his 'speculation' is treating his words in the paper a little more seriously than it deserves.
Re:Obvious explaination: (Score:5, Interesting)
You obviously have little idea how beaurocratic money works. You don't spend money in one place and move it back into the pot for use by other things.
Once money is allocated for a particular use or group, it stays there. This isn't money that DARPA is losing from the government, just money they decided they weren't going ot give to BSD. They will spend it on something else.
The war will be funded by us, our kids, their kids, and so on as budget deficit.
OT: I think making a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget may be going too far, but make it so that you can't be re-elected as president if you have a budget in the red (or something like that -- though not sure what to do about second-term presidents)..
Standing up for what you believe in (Score:1, Interesting)
What makes me angry is that, as an American citizen, DARPA's money is MY money, and they are using it as a bludgeon to silence anyone against the current war in Iraq.
I for one am going to donate [openbsd.org] money to the project via PayPal. I urge you to do the same.
If you want to help but can't afford to donate, at least send him an email [mailto] telling him that you support him. It's a lonely road and he could probably use the support.
Theo's 'oil grab' comment... "why Iraq?" (Score:2, Interesting)
If it was an oil grab, an 'informed person' would have to articulate:
why the US would spend $100+ billion to control Iraqi oil revenues that are a twentieth of that annually... surely one could get a higher return elsewhere?
what evidence there is that the U.S. will actually *take* (grab) the oil, rather than leave it for the Iraqis to own and control
explain why the US would rather take oil than just buy it on the open market
under related but alternate theories, acknowledge (or explain why not) why one should be suspicious that US is doing this for oil company contracts, but why that same logic would not apply to French and Russian rationales for opposing the war
explain why the US would act in such an insecure or greedy way when only 10-15% of its current energy usage comes from persian gulf oil (~50% energy usage is oil, 25% of US oil comes from persian gulf)
An 'informed' and fair person would also be willing to acknowledge he was wrong if, 5 years (or whatever) out, the Iraqi's had a functioning democracy and controlled their own oil. Right?
I don't claim to be 'informed'. I don't *know* why the war happened, but the stated reason is pretty decent: old theories of 'containment' don't work when a nuclear-capable state can just slip a nuke to a terrorist and get away with killing millions of people, destroying economies, etc. with a decent chance of not-getting-caught and counter-nuked. With 9/11, it became crystal clear that existing terrorists have the will and the doctrine to do participate in such actions. Nation-states clearly have the will and doctrine to develop nukes. Whether they have the will to pass such material on to terrorists is unclear, but in Iraq's case, the history of invading neighbors, using weapons of mass destruction on Iranian enemies and local Kurds, and a reasonably successful history of deceiving the UN, suggested that the will to proliferate might also be there. That possibility must be stopped.
--LP
Re:I don't know what to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
DARPA contact (Score:2, Interesting)
Generally you don't find out why (Score:3, Interesting)
And I am talking from experience. My significant other just found out today that her funding was pulled. She doesn't know why either. (And she didn't make any anti-war statements.)
"regime" (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't know where to look to back this up, but it's actually true. I don't suppose C-Span keeps searchable transcripts...
Coverage @ news.com (Score:2, Interesting)
These paragraphs sum it up pretty well:
"A University of Pennsylvania computer science professor, Jonathan Smith, had originally applied for the grant under the title, "Portable Open-Source Security Enhancements," or POSSE. About $500,000 of the money went to several U.K. researchers to do a vulnerability analysis on OpenSSL, a widely used program for encrypting communications, especially to and from Web sites. A handful of flaws were found, de Raadt said.
Smith refused to comment on the funding, citing the sensitivity of the issue. An email to the POSSE project's DARPA representative wasn't answered.
Earlier this week, de Raadt said he was told that officials from DARPA were concerned about statements appearing in press reports that indicated most of the grant was being funneled to foreign researchers, an apparent no-no for government-funded projects. Moreover, de Raadt believed that the U.S. government took exception to comments he made indicating that the money spent on his project meant that fewer cruise missiles were being built."
I'm afraid (Score:1, Interesting)
The issues of religion, war and terrorism grasp at the very essence of what it is to be human. To see images of children with their limbs blown off on the evening news and then not be able to discuss it is inhuman.
To live in a country that pines its self on free speech as the cornerstone of it's society, and then to see it squashed under the zeal of flags and nationalism makes me shudder. I wonder if this is what it was like to live in Germany in the 1930's and how much worse it has get before I have to leave.
I'm glad Theo made those comments, I'm sorry they took away his funding and I'm sorry I don't have the guts not to post as an anonymous coward.
Re:Its about common sense, not free speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Theo did not use the grant "as a vehicle for his political opinions"; in all likelyhood the grant caused a minor amount of media attention, and he was asked about DARPA issues and how this relates to the war, to which he gave his (pre-grant) opinion which was unchanged despite the money. Good for him.
Re:As They'd Say In The VaIley "It's like, shut up (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't know what to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
DAMN!
Re:theo != openbsd (Score:1, Interesting)
They may just have run out of money (Score:4, Interesting)
Theo can still have the last laugh, I dread to think how many holes in common government used software the OpenBSD audit team could find in one hackathon.