Re: Putting some FEPs under our CLA

We had a discussion about this topic in our CG meeting. The general 
consensus was that FEPs would be good to submit as input for the 
relevant task forces, rather than keeping them all in a separate repository.

Evan

On 2025-10-01 4:33 p.m., Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, I was really happy to see that BlueSky has made a patent 
> non-aggression pledge around ATProto:
>
> https://bsky.social/about/blog/10-01-2025-patent-pledge
>
> It means that we here are able to explore techniques and patterns in 
> distributed social networking without having to pursue difficult and 
> unnatural paths just to avoid potential patents by Bluesky.
>
> I want to directly say thanks to our CG colleague Bryan Newbold from 
> Bluesky for this pledge.
>
> So, how can we reciprocate?
>
>
> Our specifications, AP and AS2, are already under the W3C patent 
> policy, which is pretty comprehensive. The reports and other work that 
> we do as part of the CG are covered under the CLA, which is also 
> pretty generous w/r/t patents and other licensing.
>
> One part of our ecosystem that isn't covered under a patent license is 
> the Fediverse Enhancement Proposals (FEPs). They use a generous 
> copyright license, but there's no licensing for other intellectual 
> property.
>
> A way that we in the CG could be helpful in this area is to do a 
> secondary publication of FEPs we have authored on CG services, like a 
> GitHub repo, under the rules of the CLA.
>
> So, here's the proposal: that we create an activitypub-extensions 
> repository, and copy FEPs that we've authored into that repo. I've 
> done ~10, so it could kick off pretty quickly, but there are others 
> here who could add theirs too.
>
> Evan
>
>

Received on Monday, 13 October 2025 17:36:39 UTC