Those philosophies were certainly dangerous before they became government-established (they started somewhere); but I think we agree that the intrusive, government-established political philosophies are dangerous.
But that's not consistent with your next post...
According to an article I've seen recently, they [the US Govt] either are, or have already done that. Guess what--it was/is based on Linux source code. And in that case, it appears that the GPL you worry so much about isn't a problem for them as they are not re-selling the modifications, but using it internally.
I also seem to recall that they plan on releasing some of the security modifications back into the Linux community (again under the GPL).
I'm assuming that you're referring to SE-Linux.
Problem #1: The government is releasing computer security research into the open source community, where it can be studied and implemented by the chicoms, north koreans, iranians, saudis, etc. Furthermore, the chicoms have a history of violating the GPL, so their utilization of GPL software is not fully understood. How wise is that?
Problem #2: The government modifications to Linux can only be used by the GPL community. If someone else wants to incorporate the govt-developed code into their own product, they must either be a member of the GPL community or be forced to join the GPL community (I'm certain that MS, Apple, BSD, QNX, etc. would resist being forced to join the GPL community.). So the government's involvement in Linux development amounts to a harmful interference in the commercial software market. It becomes a "government-established" software philosophy - akin to a government-established political philosophy, which you rightly opposed.
This is a step in the wrong direction for government-funded resesarch. In the past, government-funded code development was either: 1. Classified and thus not disclosed, or 2. Released into the public domain for any/all to use (e.g. Linpack). As this project now sits, it amounts to nothing more than welfare for the GPL community.
If the government ever pays for modifications to TrustedNT or Trusted Solaris then that is more harmful. You can't use any modifications to commercial software they buy for their needs without buying the software. When they use GPL or BSD software everyone benefits.
And you want to talk about judicial activism? How about the decision by the SCOTUS in the 19th century that corporations which are collectives are individuals before the constitution and law. Corporations' rights were established not by law and constitutional amendments, but by the same mechanism that gave us Roe v Wade and the recent sodomy ruling.
No philosophy can become dangerous until it resorts to force to assert itself.
"But that's not consistent with your next post... "
"This is a step in the wrong direction for government-funded resesarch. In the past, government-funded code development was either: 1. Classified and thus not disclosed, or 2. Released into the public domain for any/all to use (e.g. Linpack). As this project now sits, it amounts to nothing more than welfare for the GPL community."
Not inconsistent at all, nor welfare. Government is simply complying with the copyright conditions of the GPL---after all, government is bound by copyright law just as all of us are. The government is still free to classify and keep secret under the GPL, or develop a code base from scratch outside the GPL limitations (and I agree with you that any such code DEVELOPED FROM SCRATCH should be public domain).
As a side note, this also appears to say that the government thinks that the GPL is legit.
As to the point about all the foreign nasties "getting the source code", obviously the folks in charge of classifying technology don't have a problem with such release--I assume the government is keeping the best algorithms for its own use in a classified version.