[Atp] Re: AT Protocol Trademark

[Michelle Lee <[e-mail]>]

I am also in favor of IPMC ownership if it is an option, given the
expertise and resources for defense if necessary.

I'd also like to propose a minor change to the Terms of Use.

Currently, a license is needed for "paid or sponsored events". A literal
read means including even small, non-commercial community meetups, e.g. a
local ATProto meetup with modest sponsorship for food and beverages, or
in-kind services such as video. While I'm fairly certain Bluesky PBC (or
future trademark holder) would grant this license, removing this friction
will be better for grassroots community growth that the policy states it
wants to support.

*Proposed revision*: add a de minimis threshold or carveouts for certain
types of sponsorship (eg "Sponsorship or in-kind support of up to $[X] per
event does not require a license, provided the funds are used only to cover
direct needs (such as venue, food, or beverages, equipment, or logistical
support) of a free, community event.")

On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 3:56 PM Boris Mann <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026, at 7:43 PM, Emelia S. wrote:
>
> If all other options fail, maybe it'd be worth setting up a lightweight AT
> Protocol Foundation (maybe under linux foundation or similar stewarding
> org) that holds the trademark + atproto.com domain?
>
> It would of course be more work, but could then be governed by some
> process, similar to PLC's new entity (with the difference that this could
> just be a US 501(c)-something).
>
> — Emelia
>
>
> Yes, as I mentioned, there is a community entity being formed.
> _______________________________________________
> Atp mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>