"He admitted to it!"
What did McKinnon admit to, though?
There are people who have been approached by a police officer and cautioned about peeing in a public place. They are told that if they accept the caution then there won't be a criminal case and if they don't accept it then they will be taken to the police station and it may go to criminal court.
They agree to the caution.
They then find that they are now on the Sex Offenders register.
Do you think they agree they were a sex offender?
Do you think that if they were told that accepting the caution would be admitting to being a Sex Offender that they would have agreed to it?
So what did McKinnon agree to?
In fact, what did he THINK he was agreeing to?
In the BSD/GPL one side say the other is "less free" than their side.
BSD are thinking as programmers. The BSD means the PROGRAMMER is more free.
GPL are thinking as end users. The GPL means the END USER is more free (if you get work done under BSD unless you specify in the contract, you CAN be locked out of the work you paid for. If it is GPL'd, you cannot. That the programmer is not free to make such a contract as to lock out the end user from the code makes them less free but allowing that makes the end user less free).
So what did McKinnon think he was agreeing to? Looking at stuff on the servers? He may say "yes" but the prosecution think they are asking "did you hack into these computers". It's why you should never agree to anything in a legal sense without counsel. If you don't know the legal meanings, you can be agreeing to something you don't realise.