I just finished a first read of @evan ‘s ActivityPub book from O’Reilly.

Evan Prodromou

@ch0ccyra1n @Mushi @galactus I'd definitely recommend using the Bridgy Fed bridge. It's really smooth.

https://bsky.brid.gy/

can

@galactus @evan @Mushi It’s very simple. Just look at the facts: there’s one Bluesky service with all their 13 million users on it, and there are thousands of Mastodon servers. No need for technical discussions and what-ifs. If quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and all that…

viq

@galactus @rysiek @evan @Mushi
IIRC @mcc tried to run PDS, and you have to have *exactly* same version as main bluesky. You try to add your own modifications, it won't work. You fail to update at the same time they do, it won't work.

Woozle Hypertwin

@galactus @evan @Mushi

I always figured there was no way they'd implement "federation" in a way that would relinquish any of that sweet centralized control.

BSky's "Federation" is just another "we use a word you like!" false-flag. National Socialism, German Democratic Republic, Freedom Caucus...

Mushi

@evan @galactus @woozle btw did threads ever federate? Which protocol did they use?

mcc

@viq @galactus @rysiek @evan @Mushi (Important nuance, possibly not super relevant to the conversation preceding: you can always *add* stuff. The version mismatch rules viq mentions only refer to *changing* stuff. So you could layer a second "application" with its own orthogonal data fields on top of AT, it's just if your implementation of the bluesky distributed application differs even a little from the Bluesky Social mothership you can get unpersoned. I am not impressed.)

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@mcc so, BlueSky is *still* cosplaying decentralization.

@viq @galactus @evan @Mushi

Evan Prodromou

@Mushi @galactus @woozle yes, ActivityPub. Currently one way; you can follow Threads accounts from Mastodon, and reply to them, but they can't follow you. Coming soon...?

Pierre

@evan @Mushi @galactus

Please share how atproto is a proprietary protocol

According to the license file atproto is Dual MIT/Apache-2.0 License which you can view here: https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/blob/main/LICENSE.txt

Also included a screenshot

Sergio

@okpierre @evan @Mushi but that's not how openness works for network protocols. Governance is critically important.

Pierre

@galactus @evan @Mushi

I'm trying to understand how atproto is proprietary. Are you saying the license is meaningless?

Sergio

@okpierre @evan @Mushi the license you pointed at concerns the distribution if the at protocol reference implementation. The propietary character of the protocol itself is a different matter.

Evan Prodromou

@okpierre @Mushi @galactus did you find the patent license that lets other codebases use the techniques patent-free? Not just their own Apache-licensed code?

Evan Prodromou

@galactus @okpierre @Mushi thanks. This is correct.

Evan Prodromou

@okpierre @Mushi @galactus I've asked @bnewbold.net and @mmasnick.bsky.social about making a patent license for ATProto.

One way they could do it is to publish the protocol as a Report of a W3C community group, like the SocialCG or even a new community group, which would give it the patent licenses that open standards require.

W3C Community Final Specification Agreement | Community and Business Groups

(www.w3.org)

This would make protocol experimentation much more reasonable.

Only the Bluesky team can do this.

Evan Prodromou

@okpierre @Mushi @galactus @bnewbold.net @mmasnick.bsky.social I know that "open source" feels like it should be enough to be an "open standard", but unfortunately not. One of the hard things the distributed social network community have learned over the years is that the standards process matters.

Doctor Popular

@evan @okpierre @Mushi @galactus @bnewbold.net @mmasnick.bsky.social fascinating convo. It's interesting to say "open source" is not the same as "open standard" and that both are needed for true decentralization. That makes sense, but I'm not understanding what BSKY needs to change in order to be open standard.

Are you saying the code is open source, but still requires a proprietary piece (like a company-controlled server)?

Pierre

@docpop @evan @Mushi @galactus @bnewbold.net @mmasnick.bsky.social

I'm glad I asked. This is more about the additional patent license that allows others to use the techniques patent free

It's misleading to say atproto is proprietary. I do wonder if Nostr can also be mislabeled the same way

Evan Prodromou

@okpierre @docpop @Mushi @galactus @bnewbold.net @mmasnick.bsky.social

proprietary - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Wiktionary (en.wiktionary.org)

"4. Nonstandard and controlled by one particular organization."

Evan Prodromou

@docpop @okpierre @Mushi @galactus @bnewbold.net @mmasnick.bsky.social there are two main things.

First is governance. Turning over the protocol to a multi-stakeholder standards organization like the IETF or W3C. As long as one company controls it, it's not open.

Second, like I said, is eliminating the other IP issues. Patents, trademarks, copyright. Those are usually handled by the IP agreements of standards organizations, or they also can be done unilaterally.