On Jan 6, 2004, at 08:00, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:01:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote:I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.Prove that it isn't.It is the duty of the proponent to prove his arguments and demonstrate his assumptions.You (and Andrew Suffield, John Goerzen etc) are advocating the removal of non-free, so I believe the burden of proof is yours.
On the overall issue, perhaps[0]. However, on each argument, either for against non-free, the burden is on the arguer.
If you want to change the status quo, convince the voters.
[0]: Unless, of course, the voters are already convinced, in which case practically it rests upon the proponents of keeping non-free.