I have to say, I sympathize with the other side of the argument. It would be great to have source and have everything properly licensed with the GPL but for scientific research, repeatability demands re-implementations. If you can't reproduce the "science" without copying some magic code rather than understanding and reimplementing it then i'm not sure you are doing Science. If you are just copying then any bugs in the analysis are going to be propagated when the analysis is double-checked, making any double-checking useless. Maybe having source available makes an audit of the methods use easier but is it sufficiently easier than reimplementation or is that level of auditing ultimately breaking even with reimplementation, esp. if the computer is just automating basic statistical analysis.
I think the subject is worth debating. Open source scientific software isn't an unmitigated win although it may be the best way forward.