Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 02:07:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > And that is relevant how? I parse that as "technical needs of...".
> > No, I parse that as "needs".
> "Debian's goals include the provision of free sex for its users"
Is that free <gratis>, or free <libre>?
I've always and only had free <gratis> sex.
And I'm not sure anyone believes in really free <libre> sex. For
example, I think that the potential other participant(s) should have
the right to veto sex with me. And I get to veto having sex with
someone else if I don't want to do it with them.
Indeed, that standpoint of bodily integrity is one of the things that
makes sex so much fun, that one is freely giving it up, and the other
person doesn't have any right to it.
But that also means that anytime I might want to have sex, the other
person gets to say "no", and that means that I can't claim to support
<libre> sex. I must always ask permission (don't get me wrong; there
are plenty of non-verbal ways to ask).