| |||||||||||||
Before blaming U. Pennsylvania ....Before blaming U. Pennsylvania ....Posted May 1, 2003 18:39 UTC (Thu) by oconnorcjo (guest, #2605)In reply to: Before blaming U. Pennsylvania .... by zonker Parent article: DARPA Cancels OpenBSD Funding A simple rule: "don't bite the hand that feeds you". Theo should either have taken the money and shut up or rejected the money and said whatever he felt like saying. It is just stupid to say I will take your money but I hate your guts. As much as LWN seems to take de Raadt's side, I believe the blame rest on OpenBSD's leader. It is not good morally or politically to "bad mouth" the people who are doing you a favor (and one should bear the consequences for doing so).
(Log in to post comments)
Before blaming U. Pennsylvania .... Posted May 5, 2003 20:13 UTC (Mon) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link] Sorry -- I don't buy it. Accepting a government grant absolutely should not be a tacit agreement not to speak out against the government. The blame lies solely with DARPA and the Air Force for not being able to tolerate a bit of criticism, if in fact that is the reason that they cancelled the funding.I would also, strongly, disagree that it "is not good morally" to speak out against an employer or benefactor. That attitude implies that one's morality and opinion is for sale -- which is utterly wrong as far as I'm concerned. I believe that people have a duty to stand up for their political opinions, and if they happen to run counter to a benefactor, so be it. If your employer does something you don't agree with, you should be able to criticize them without fearing for your job. If we allow the government to work according to your principles, there are a lot of people who work for companies that do government contract work who would be sacrificing the right to make political statements just by taking a job with Boeing or some company that does work for the government. That's not right. Again, the funding was for the work -- not Theo's political opinion. As long as he met the criteria of the grant, and no one has suggested that he hasn't, then the funding should have remained untouched. If they wish to rebut his opinion, well and good, but pulling funding (particularly without being straightforward about it and admitting the real reasons) is just cowardly and unjustified.
|
|||||||||||||