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.
Proving that is is just a matter of finding one person who claims non-free is important and useful to them. People have already posted to this list explaining why it's important and useful to them. It's quite reasonable to want to remove non-free *in spite* of it being important and useful, of course, but no one who wants to has done a particularly good job of trying to balance the concerns yet. Wasn't it the job of the proponent to prove his arguments and support his assumptions? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
