Sure, but the Chinese government has far more sophisticated ways of taking down sites so their own citizens can't access them, and they're not afraid to use them - even against big name sites. And in fact they often do, to help local companies providing the same offerings to prosper.
The current DDoS attack just strikes me as too crude a method when they have so many other options available.
If you were going to argue that it's just a retaliation towards GitHub for hosting these projects, then once again there are others sites the government is far more concerned about and they could use DDoS to bring them down with far less publicity than what the GitHub DDoS is generating.
It just doesn't seem to make sense from either the method being used or the motivation behind the attacks.
If there's the potential for multiples then I'll have a CameraManager (TheCameraManager) that finds out what's connected to the system and provides enumeration and access. I'll generally try to make the cameras look like a singleton and hide the Camera class. Sort of like a factory, except you'll only ever get N instances of your Camera class for N cameras.
Reasons are listed in the comment you replied to: they're different areas of law, with different mechanics. Details matter. Yes, it also helps the pro-GPL crowd. That's not an argument against it (nor for it). An argument against would be to argue how some similarity among them makes it relevant to consider them all together.
Doesn't that parenthetical comment destroy the rest of the [small sub-]argument: because you paid someone for doing research doesn't mean that if they decide to make something else free to access that you have a right to make further demands of them.
If central government just gave them a stipend and didn't specify the projects it was to be used on then the argument you're supporting would perhaps have some mileage; but it's payment for a specific service. If the schools aren't making their research centres accessible or are unnecessarily excluding disabled people [from research related tasks/benefits/etc.] then, yes, this argument would be valid.
Still it's as close as you'll get with a classical analogy, and if you only have access to a fixed basis is entirely correct. Expanding beyond the classical explanation is only truly necessary when you start measuring in different bases.