Licensing#

A permissive split licence, published from the first day rather than added once adoption made it awkward not to.

What you may do#

Without asking, without paying, without telling anyone:

• Implement HarnessXML. Build an editor, parser, validator, runtime,

  compiler, importer, exporter or SDK. Sell it. Compete with Rumima.

• Copy and redistribute the specification, in whole or in part, in any medium.
• Translate it. Translations are explicitly welcome, and a good translation is

  a contribution to the specification's reach, not a derivative to be tolerated.

• Quote it in your own documentation, papers, RFCs or standards.
• Build a derived specification or a profile on top of it.
• Use the reference code in a commercial product, modified or not.

There is no implementer agreement, no royalty, no field-of-use restriction, and no notification requirement.

What you must do#

Attribute the specification text. CC BY 4.0's one condition. Something like:

HarnessXML Specification, created and stewarded by VisML, used under CC BY 4.0. <https://harnessxml.com/>

Indicate if you changed it. If you publish a modified or derived specification, say so plainly and do not imply VisML endorses it.

Keep the Apache-2.0 notices on code you redistribute — the licence text, the copyright notice, and a statement of significant changes. Standard Apache obligations, nothing unusual.

Attribution in code is requested but not required beyond what Apache-2.0 says. Attribution in specification text is required.

Why these two, specifically#

CC BY 4.0 for the text. A specification only becomes a standard if a competitor can implement it without permission. CC BY is the weakest condition under which authorship still has to be acknowledged: commercial use, derivatives and redistribution are all permitted, and credit is the price. It is the posture of the specifications HarnessXML means to stand alongside.

Apache 2.0 for the code, rather than MIT. Two reasons, and the first is the real one:

1. The express patent grant (section 3). A specification that enterprises are

   asked to implement must not leave a patent question open. MIT is silent on patents; Apache-2.0 grants them explicitly and terminates the grant for anyone who sues over patents in the work. Enterprise legal review notices this.

2. Familiarity. Kubernetes, Terraform, OpenTelemetry. Apache-2.0 reads as

   normal and passes review without a conversation.

Note the asymmetry: the CC BY licence on the specification text grants no patent rights. The patent grant that matters attaches to the reference implementation under Apache-2.0.

Why trademarks are excluded#

Neither licence grants trademark rights, and that is deliberate rather than an oversight.

Trademarks are the only lever left once everything else is given away. They are what stops a divergent fork from calling itself HarnessXML, and what makes a conformance claim mean something.

• You may say your software "implements HarnessXML" or "supports HarnessXML".
• You may not name or brand your product so as to imply it is the official

  HarnessXML implementation, or that VisML produced or endorsed it.

• Using the HarnessXML conformance mark requires published, reproducible

  results from a tagged release of the conformance suite.

A false conformance claim is a trademark matter. That is the enforcement mechanism, and it exists precisely so that everything else could be permissive.

Contributions#

By contributing you agree your contribution is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (text) or Apache 2.0 (code), and that you have the right to contribute it. There is no CLA. The Apache-2.0 inbound patent grant in section 5 covers what a CLA would otherwise be needed for.

If your employer owns your work, get their permission first — that is the one thing this project cannot check for you.

Files#

• LICENSE-SPEC — CC BY 4.0 terms and scope
• LICENSE-CODE — full Apache 2.0 text
• Governance — the commitments that surround the licences