Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

atproto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 157 posts

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#121

Post by danabramov »

shimman wrote: post #108
danabramov wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you going to write it below my every comment? I've already replied to this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48933050 . Also, I don't think either claim in my reply is dependent on who wrote it. You can trivially verify them yourself.

It's relevant, disclosure is a sign trust and failure to disclose past relations breaks that trust.

I'll try to mention it once per discussion page in the future. Also, I have not been working at Bluesky for over a year. While I was there, I was working on the client app and not the protocol. In fact, initially I thought the protocol stuff was a bunch of nonsense.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#122

Post by steveklabnik »

wat10000 wrote: post #111
account42 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... which is a protocol, thus pre-existing colloquial use of "AT protocol" that makes this trademark questionable.

Is this a real thing? I don't think I've ever heard "AT protocol" before Bluesky. My first modem was 300 baud, so I wasn't totally out of the loop on this. DDG finds four hits for the phrase before 2020 used to describe the Hayes command set.

It is an incredibly common comment to be made on posts about atproto, so there certainly are a lot of people here for whom it was a thing.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#123

Post by [deleted] »

aidenn0 wrote: post #101
shafyy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto trademark. For now

Then they start calling it "buproto" or something. Firefox has a trademark too, but that didn't stop debian from distributing the same thing under the name Iceweasel...

[deleted]

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#124

Post by wat10000 »

steveklabnik wrote: post #122
wat10000 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a real thing? I don't think I've ever heard "AT protocol" before Bluesky. My first modem was 300 baud, so I wasn't totally out of the loop on this. DDG finds four hits for the phrase before 2020 used to describe the Hayes command set.

It is an incredibly common comment to be made on posts about atproto, so there certainly are a lot of people here for whom it was a thing.

I did a search and there are like three such comments in the past year, including this one.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#125

Post by icedchai »

ReptileMan wrote: post #26
sschueller wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what about the existing AT protocol modems use?

They use AT command set, not protocol.

I've heard it referred to as "AT command protocol." I googled it myself and this terminology is common enough.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#126

Post by MikeBeas »

inigyou wrote: post #118
MikeBeas wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tons of people have started products without issue. But if you flood a popular relay with data that exceeds its rate limit then getting throttled is to be expected. This doesn’t prevent your participation in the protocol or network. There are other relays and indexes out there that may have different rate limits. That’s just how these things work. The data from W is still there on their PDS, still public, still crawl…

That literally prevents your participation in the network, because you need the relay to be forwarding your messages to participate in the network. There is only one relay in BlueSky that matters. If the BlueSky relay is not relaying your messages, then you aren't on BlueSky.

Bluesky is not all of atproto, first of all. There are a bunch of apps thats don’t use any relay at all. Second, even if you aren’t on bsky’s relay, there are others, like the Blacksky relay.

I’m guessing from your constantly-incorrect capitalization of “BlueSky” that you’re not familiar with any of this even a little bit and you’re just repeating what you’ve heard from other, equally unfamiliar people.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#127

Post by well_ackshually »

ktosobcy wrote: post #114
danabramov wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Cool people use ActivityPub. ActivityPub solves a completely different (arguably, smaller) set of problems. This is like saying "Cool people use email instead of web". I have a few diagrams here that may help see just how different they are: https://overreacted.io/there-are-no-instances-in-atproto/#so... >Single vendor owned & controlled standards always turn out badly, just a question when. Yeah, which is why atpro…

Right… and still 99,99% of everything is held by bsky PDS and goes through their rely and appview… so much for "distributed federation"

In the same way that 99.99% of standard mastodon users are on mastodon.social, yes.

No, the million of users sharing porn on entirely isolated mastodon instances that absolutely nobody wants to federate with because you'd be exposed to pictures of minors within 5 minutes do not count.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#128

Post by steveklabnik »

wat10000 wrote: post #124
steveklabnik wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an incredibly common comment to be made on posts about atproto, so there certainly are a lot of people here for whom it was a thing.

I did a search and there are like three such comments in the past year, including this one.

Depending on how you search specifically, you may or may not get all of them. For example, if you searched for "at protocol" specifically, you wouldn't get comments that are like "I thought we were talking about the old modem protocol!" and similar.

Anyway I don't think that it means that atproto was misnamed or anything, just that this thread isn't the only time people have brought this up.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#129

Post by chaosharmonic »

rudyfraser wrote: post #87

Chiming in to say as the CEO of Blacksky that not only do we have an independent AT Protocol implementation in Rust ( https://github.com/blacksky-algorithms/rsky ) 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 tradem…

Yeah, I had significantly less apprehension about it myself on reading their docs, but thought it was still news XD

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#130

Post by chaosharmonic »

aidenn0 wrote: post #101
shafyy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto trademark. For now

Then they start calling it "buproto" or something. Firefox has a trademark too, but that didn't stop debian from distributing the same thing under the name Iceweasel...

Notably, from their FAQ:

> 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.

Post reply on HN