I am curious how you would reconcile your two insinuations; 1. that it is a political act to accept donations form a party that has a particular nationality (or with this or that underlying ownership), even if that party does so with explicit knowledge that a fundamental condition of acceptance is that there be no quid pro quo. 2. that it would *not* be a political act to *refuse* such a donation, simply because of that party's nationality, etc.
You are free to argue that both alternatives are political, or that neither is, but it seems to me that if you try to claim that only one of these actions is political, then you are necessarily taking a political position in doing so! Think it through. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not swimming in some relativist/apologist soup of indifference here. For example, if someone were to accept funds from Charles Keating and/or the Duvalier family with no offer of any reciprocation other than the public relations of the gesture itself (who would do such a thing?), then I would certainly agree that acceptance of those funds would be both political and immoral. But I would also say that refusing such funds would be just as political, and proudly so. In this case, it's politics either way, and it's a question of taking a political and moral stance. The only way to to avoid any political overtones in such a situation (if that really is your intention, because "doing the right thing" is not an apolitical notion) is to blindly accept all comers or refuse all comers. (Subject to the obvious outliers, ie. nothing criminal/illegal, no conflict of interest, etc.) By erecting criteria beyond "no strings attached" (which *is* a very explicit necessary condition), you are in fact condemning yourself to the problem you are chastising us for. You may well make an "argument for purity" to the effect that the only safe passage is to refuse everything, but the results of that course of action are plainly known and that course of action is now part of the problem that needs to be solved. What else? Oh yes, someone said something about how it would be better if such things were funneled through other organisations. Well, in so far as those organisations represent open source well and focus their efforts on channeling as much of that funding through to the intended targets as possible, I would certainly praise any such generosity. But I can't see the argument for why that is somehow morally superior, let alone necessary? Would equivalent accusations not apply to whomsoever the money is directed? If your point really is that this particular offer (or whoever you believe is behind it) is of poor enough moral or political standing that their support should be refused, out of solidarity or whatever else, then please be courageous enough to say that *that* is what you think, and by preference, please say it in a forum where that sort of discussion is actually welcome. (If you think openssl.org should position itself (geo)politically and wish to advocate some ideological slant for that, then I can only tell you that you can count me out.) On the other hand, if your point is that your comments have nothing to do with this particular case, then (a) I think your comments have betrayed you, and (b) you haven't convinced me of any political or moral wrong-doing in the handling of this case or any other, and so you may have to try again. Geoff PS: @Jeffrey Walton: do you mean to say the penguins didn't give us linux?! ;-)
