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!

I am also a member of the W3C SWICG, and did a short session at the recent TPAC about DNS and our identity system

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!

(sorry if this reply thread came on strong; would also be happy to chat about all this offline)

No worries. And I didn’t know about the IETF connection; that is actually good hear. I’d love to chat more if I can be helpful.

To be honest I think you are talking to the right people. I would like more of this to be visible. Right now if I go to atproto.com I don't see any evidence of this. There is no indication of the protocol license. I also think CC-by is not appropriate for a protocol which may carry I.P. …