Post

Great to see Bluesky taking off, however: I am once again asking Bluesky to make good on their promise to make AT protocol an open standard by firstly publishing it under a proper license (e.g. Community Specification) and then by bringing it to the W3C Social Web CG or a similar open standards org.

hello! the specs are under CC-BY, and our impl is under MIT/Apache2 (for patent grant). it is all free/libre and unencumbered. if there is more we could do with the license on the specifications themselves, please let me know!

I have been going to IETF meetings for more than a year now, talking publicly about it as our likely venue, and getting advise from a variety of standards folks. the standards process is long, and we need multiple stakeholders/implementations on-board before we start. happy to chat!

docs.bsky.app2023 Protocol Roadmap | BlueskyThis post lays out the current AT Protocol (atproto) development plan, through to a "version one" release. This document is written for developers already familiar with atproto concepts and terminolog...

the Community Specification 1.0 license seems oriented around a "Working Group" concept? and we want to defer that to a "real" standards body. if you know of a similar license (or combination) which could apply to just our specification text, i'd be curious!

github.comgithub.com

0 reposts2 likes

another idea which has been floated is to take our public written specs (in the atproto-website git repo) and just dump them on a W3C mailing list or as an IETF I-D. feels a bit aggressive? do you have any thoughts on that?