Sorry for the late reply. I think (but am not 100% sure) that by the time your PhD comes around you have all your coursework out of the way and only attend dep

Sorry for the late reply. I think (but am not 100% sure) that by the time your PhD comes around you have all your coursework out of the way and only attend department seminars for PhD candidates, post-docs, professors and the like. I'll send my research into the matter as it goes forward where I take a proper look at the ethical nature of free software. It's not just some philosophers and programmers and business managers who don't see it as an ethical issue. But this is the case for a lot of social conventions that aren't widespread, like vegetarianism. "classical logic clearly proves too much; but doesn't intuitionism prove too little?" I've never seen the difference formulated like this. But I see what you mean. Intuitionism restricts your proofs (in mathematics anyhow) to constructive proofs so, for instance, proof by contradiction is generally not permissible. But my feeling is that classical proofs don't tell you very much. For finite models they both work, where potential infinities (or stuff with recursive properties) are involved I feel that intuitionism stops you coming to needlessly silly conclusions. Sorry if this is all a bit vague. I'd have to show you what I mean by addressing it to a particular area.