Those can't register trademarks, of course.
> that also runs the only viable instance?
This is false, both in the framing ("instances") and in the viability of running alternative infrastructure.
Those can't register trademarks, of course.
> that also runs the only viable instance?
This is false, both in the framing ("instances") and in the viability of running alternative infrastructure.
I left this comment shortly before bed and my thought process was “a working group isn’t a legal entity and therefore can’t do this” but it’s entirely possible that that was shortsighted of me.
(Obviously the IETF itself can.)
Did I just describe Apple Podcasts? Huh. Regardless, yeah, there’s no “ATProto instances” technically, but there are ATProto apps and the single biggest one now owns the trademark to the protocol name.
So yeah, podcasts are in good shape. In fact, they are probably the most used decentralized media right now (apart from torrents, maybe). I hope Bluesky gets to that point, and I do wish them luck, but we’ve got to see the incentives are not that well aligned. As for the trademark... it’s surely weird, it’s not the end of the world if they continue to hold it, but setting up a non-profit (not in US, perhaps) for the protocol itself would probably be more appropriate down the road.
[0]: https://docs.blacksky.community/
[1]: https://blackskyweb.xyz/about/support/tos/#:~:text=Blacksky%...
Atproto decouples them: there's app-agnostic hosting (which anyone can run), and there's hosting-agnostic apps (which anyone can run).
I wrote about it here: https://overreacted.io/there-are-no-instances-in-atproto/#so...