Completing an act that is strictly outlawed by statute is a crime regardless of the intent. The risk is wholly upon the actor if they get too close to the line.
The most promising aspect of open source software, even beyond being free of locked-down monopolies, is the opportunity for anyone with an interest in software to get their hands dirty and experience what it feels like to help develop a project they actually use and care about. Even if the coding experience isn't there, there may be other ways to get involved. Participating in OSS has the potential to be very gratifying, and can entice more people to consider computer programming by leaping over the barrier of "who cares about a stupid program that prints 'hello world'?"
Nonsense. MOST (non-mathematical) word puzzles are based on challenging assumptions inherent in colloquial English. They are designed to be misleading.
Whenever a puzzle is presented as a simple setup, the puzzler should always consider each word as a clue. With regards to the given puzzle, the puzzler naturally assumes in colloquial English that, if the speaker mentions a set of characteristics applying to a group, the speaker would not intentionally leave out members of the group that have those same characteristics. In my opinion, that's a typical assumption challenged by word puzzles.
Consider this statement: "I have two children with birthday parties coming up during the week. One of whom is a boy born on a Tuesday. The other is also a boy born on a Tuesday, but he's already graduated college so we don't need to get him a clown." It's not improper, just inefficient.
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman