Rights Layer Specification

License Guide

Status: Draft v0.1.0 — This section is informative.

Decision (2026-07-12): the project owner selected CC BY 4.0 for the specification text and CC0 1.0 for the machine-readable artifacts and examples. See LICENSE.md for the applied terms. The comparison below is preserved as the record of the considerations behind that choice. It is neutral: it names licenses as published instruments and recommends no vendor, body, or venue (Principle P1; openness itself is required by Principle P9 of the Core Principles).

The project produces three classes of artifact with different reuse patterns, so candidates are compared per class:

Specification text — the prose documents (this docs/ tree).
Machine-readable artifacts — the JSON Schema and JSON-LD context, which implementers typically embed verbatim inside products.
Sample code and examples — the examples/ tree and any future illustrative snippets.

1. Specification Text

Candidates: CC BY 4.0, Community Specification License 1.0, Open Web Foundation Agreement (OWFa 1.0), W3C Document License.

CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0). A general-purpose content license: anyone may copy, redistribute, and adapt with attribution. Permits derivative specifications freely. Contains no patent grant (patent rights are expressly not licensed). Widely used for open specifications published outside formal standards bodies.
Community Specification License 1.0. A license framework designed specifically for specifications developed in open communities (e.g., repository-hosted projects). Combines a copyright license with a patent licensing commitment from contributors and defined contribution/withdrawal procedures. Increasingly used for community-driven specifications that want standards-body-like IP hygiene without joining a body.
OWFa 1.0 (Open Web Foundation Agreement). A set of agreements under which specification authors grant copyright permissions and a non-assert patent covenant for implementations of the specification. Historically used by several web-infrastructure specifications developed outside formal bodies.
W3C Document License. The license under which W3C publishes its technical reports. Permits copying and distribution but, in its classic form, restricts creation of derivative specifications (to protect standards integrity); patent commitments come separately from the W3C Patent Policy, which applies to W3C Working Group deliverables — i.e., its full benefit presumes publishing through W3C.

Criterion	CC BY 4.0	Community Spec License 1.0	OWFa 1.0	W3C Document License
Attribution required	Yes	Yes (notices)	Yes (notices)	Yes
Derivative specifications	Allowed	Allowed under the framework’s process	Allowed with scope conditions	Restricted (classic form)
Patent grant / commitment	None	Yes — contributor patent commitment	Yes — non-assert covenant	Via W3C Patent Policy (body membership context)
Typical usage	Open specs outside formal bodies	Community/repository-hosted specs	Web infrastructure specs outside bodies	W3C Recommendations
Fit outside any standards body	High	High (designed for it)	Medium–high	Low (designed for W3C process)

Patent-policy consideration. Standards bodies attach patent-grant or non-assert instruments to specifications because a specification is only usable if it can be implemented without patent exposure; copyright licenses alone (like CC BY 4.0) cover the text, not implementations of the ideas in it. Projects that expect multiple contributors or corporate implementers therefore often pair a content license with a patent instrument (Community Specification License and OWFa exist for exactly this), or publish through a body whose patent policy applies. This consideration is noted without recommending any specific body or venue.

2. Machine-Readable Artifacts (JSON Schema, JSON-LD Context)

Candidates: MIT, Apache-2.0, CC0-1.0.

These files are meant to be embedded verbatim in products — validators, build pipelines, distributed applications. The dominant considerations are therefore attribution burden at embedding time and patent posture.

MIT. Very short permissive license; requires retaining the copyright and permission notice. No express patent grant.
Apache-2.0. Permissive with an express patent grant from contributors and a patent-retaliation clause; requires retaining notices (and a NOTICE file if used).
CC0-1.0. A public-domain dedication: no attribution required, no conditions at all. Expressly does not license patents. Chosen when the goal is zero-friction embedding.

Criterion	MIT	Apache-2.0	CC0-1.0
Patent grant	No express grant	Yes	Expressly none
Attribution burden when embedded	Low (keep notice)	Moderate (keep notices/NOTICE)	None
License-compatibility friction downstream	Very low	Low (some copyleft-ecosystem nuances)	Lowest
Common practice for schemas/contexts	Common	Common	Common — schemas and vocabulary files are often CC0 or MIT precisely so implementers can embed freely

Schemas and context files carry little patentable subject matter of their own, which is why many projects accept CC0 or MIT here even when they use a patent-bearing instrument for the specification text; projects wanting one uniform patent posture across all machine-readable outputs lean Apache-2.0.

3. Sample Code and Examples

Candidates: MIT, Apache-2.0, CC0-1.0.

Examples exist to be copied into implementations, often as fragments and without provenance. Considerations mirror class 2, weighted even further toward frictionless copying:

Criterion	MIT	Apache-2.0	CC0-1.0
Patent grant	No express grant	Yes	Expressly none
Burden when copying fragments into a codebase	Low	Moderate	None
Common practice for spec examples/snippets	Common	Common	Common (many projects dedicate examples to the public domain so no notice travels with a copied snippet)

4. Candidate Shortlist (Awaiting Decision)

The following combinations are commonly chosen by comparable open specification projects. They are listed as candidates awaiting the project owner’s decision — none is adopted, and this list does not bind the eventual choice:

Artifact class	Frequently chosen candidates
Specification text	CC BY 4.0 (simple, body-independent) or Community Specification License 1.0 / OWFa 1.0 (when a patent commitment is wanted)
JSON Schema / JSON-LD context	CC0-1.0 or MIT (frictionless embedding); Apache-2.0 (uniform patent posture)
Sample code / examples	Same trio; often matched to the schema choice

A commonly chosen combination is CC BY 4.0 for the specification text plus Apache-2.0 or CC0-1.0 for schemas and examples. Whether Rights Layer additionally needs a patent instrument (or eventual submission to a standards venue) depends on the expected contributor and implementer base, and is part of the pending decision.

Open items for the decision, to be resolved before first public release:

Choose one license per artifact class from the candidates above (or a documented alternative).
Decide whether a contributor patent commitment is required, and if so by which instrument.
Add LICENSE file(s) and per-file or per-directory notices reflecting the choice.
Record the decision and its rationale in the project history.

This site is open source. Improve this page.