Also, interestingly, the [A]GPL (at least since version 2) has *implied* patent grant and which is way more precise than most patent grants, see [1].
Basically, something under GPL 2 (or even GPL 2+, GPL 3 or GPL 3+, whatever) will also allow the licensee/receiver to make use of that patented part and --- as far as I understand --- only in the licensed work, and also allows the adaptations made from that work to carry the same grant. If however, someone makes a work that didn't come from yours, didn't come from any adaptation made based on yours and happens to implement a thing described in one of the patents, then in the worst case (not recommended if you believe in Community Oriented GPL Enforcement), he can get sued for patent infringement. Inside the group of those who obtained a copy of the work, if one of the licensees breaks the license, then (again not recommended) the licensee can get sued for breaking the license *and* perhaps for patent infringement. [1] <https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf> (under CC BY-SA 4.0). Particularly, see chapter 6 ("GPL’s Implied Patent Grant"). 2017-11-29T20:47:30-0200 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > Contributing a little more to what was said by others: > > First lets make a point about what is "economics". To put it simple, > economics deals with evaluating how scarcity or abundance of a given > resource (not money!) shapes how society behaves. Those who understand > econmics feel free to complement what I just said, because I'm just > simplifying the description. > > Now, what *isn't* economics? Simple: the art of getting rich. If one > talks about "economics" in terms of getting rich, then you are talking > about chrematistics (see [1][2]). > > Having said all that, lets dive a bit more: > > There are various resources in the world, besides there are those which > are consumed when used, and those which are very costly/expensive to > transport/carry arround, even more, there are resources that can be used > and combined in order to form other resources that might have the same > properties as the parent ones... or not. > > Thanks to computers and things that store stuff digitally, resources > such as "knowledge" and "information" can now make other resources that, > *by nature* (pay attention to this, it'll bite you in the future > otherwise), are non-rival and non-excludable, both in the economic sense: > > - non-rival because, *by nature*, if one reads a digital book, for > example, its pages don't start to get old, neither they get undesired > wraps nor start to fall off. Furthermore, non-rival because, once > again *by nature*, it doesn't prevent another person to read that same > copy or any other copy originating exactly from the one you're > supposedly reading. > > - non-excludable because, *by nature*, there is no way to prevent those > who have not paid for it from having access to, say, the digital book > given as example before. Furthermore, the cost of transaction for > things originating from the "knowledge"+"information" combination and > which can be stored digitally somehow are almost non-existing, take > any computer file you have and which you received from someone else > and copy it anyware: you're done, the transaction cost for you was > almost nothing. > > Now, what does software patents have to do with what I said here? > > If one takes a resource that is naturally non-rival, non-excludable, > which can be stored digitally, that came from the combination of > "knowledge"+"information" resources --- to summarize: a public good by > nature (in economic sense) --- and puts it under "contracts" (also in > the economic sense) which are made like it's done for non-public goods > (idem) and which excessively limit the capabilities of one party > relative to what the offerer/provider already can do, then we have a > tragedy of the anticommons, where everyone who *will be entering* the > economic scenario and which could be providing a given public good by > nature (again economically speaking) will feel tempted to hold up (not > do anything), even though they might not know if there is already such a > thing, this is well described in [3][4] and briefly mentioned in [5][6]. > > In the other hand, if one makes the contract too loose so as to say "do > whatever you want, I'll give you everything and not require anything > besides attribution to me" then we *will still* face the problem of > finding/fostering an oportunistic competitive behavior which further > makes the tragedy of the anticommons stronger (see [3][4]), because this > /homo economicus/ will attempt to proprietarize the adapatations done > individually by that person. > > So both the receiving party and the offering one must find a contract > that makes everyone possible to make everything as long as the thing in > question and all the derivatives are kept under the same contract, > furthermore, make all those involved contractually bound to provide > everything that is needed in order to study and adapt the object. > > Finally, one has to take into account that references [2][3][4] have > some minor issues, to know more see my comment on [7]. > > Now a funny observation: when digital technology started to appear, > people were used to seeing two distinct groups of people: (a) those in > favor of it; (b) those against. Nowadays those still exist, but (a) has > divided itself, so we have: (a) those in favor and which think it still > deserves the same old rival+excludable+oportunistic+competitive > thinking; (b) those in favor and which are contrary of (a); (c) those > against it. So now I'm starting to understand why Stallman seems to > recommend digital *extraction*, because if the new group (a) continues > this madness it will affect (b), (c) and the rest of (a). Besides, the > old (a) pushed its goal so hard that now it can't carry the burden of > realising what the new (b) is telling. Interestingly, at least from a > quick look, these problems don't seem to exist if one goes to a place > where everyone agrees and forbids use of any digital technology. > > [1] > <http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/rae/article/download/37597/36588> > (under CC BY 4.0). > > [2] > <http://revistas.udem.edu.co/index.php/economico/article/download/1964/1782> > (under CC BY-NC 4.0). > > [3] <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ecos/v21n3/08.pdf> (under CC BY-NC 4.0). > > [4] <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/neco/v23n1/07.pdf> (under CC BY-NC 4.0). > > [5] > <https://unglueit-files.s3.amazonaws.com/ebf/d6bbf7d8d427f67ae390ac0a406181df.pdf> > (under CC BY 3.0). > > [6] <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002245/224531E.pdf> (under a > license which allows usage, adaptation and redistribution, with > adaptations under similar terms). > > [7] > <https://listas.trisquel.info/pipermail/trisquel-users/2017-November/083315.html>.
