But the argument that established, profitable organizations in the atproto space have no qualms with this move is not as reassuring as you might think.
1. An adversary attempting to do so in order to extract money (rent seeking).
2. There was less legal and financial overhead in doing so via the PBC.
While not everything BlueSky has done has been stellar, and there have been missteps, I think they’ve generally been exceptional stewards of atproto and the ecosystem. As a result, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt they will stand by their word.
FWIW— shithead trolls doing things like acquiring copyrights to extract “rents” are exactly why every org I’ve ever worked for pays lawyers for bullshit copyright and patent applications. It’s not because they’re valid, it’s because it’s cheaper to do so upfront, than fight to disprove someone else own’s them later.
For now
Darth Vader, VP of Contract Renegotiation
> We’ve taken inspiration from other open-source projects that have taken a similar approach, including Wikimedia, Red Hat, Rust, Python Foundation, Apache, Mozilla, Linux, and Debian.
Is that license irrevocable/permanent from their side?
(It really needs to be, except for clauses against misconduct from your side.)
Not only do we run a fully independent stack (https://docs.blacksky.community/readme/list-of-our-services)
Not only are we getting paid by other orgs to stand up independent app view servers.
We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto trademark.
There are no qualms in the ecosystem from people making money, getting users, and providing new experiences about this.
It’s not “AT Protocol fans” who aren’t taking issue with this. It’s business with employees and organizations making a positive impact.
It’s easy to criticize if you’re not actively shipping things.