As you’ve surmised, the user / workflow author is meant to be the same person. When it says “authors must retain ownership”, this was mostly meant as a reactio

As you’ve surmised, the user / workflow author is meant to be the same person. When it says “authors must retain ownership”, this was mostly meant as a reaction against platforms like IFTTT and marketplaces like browser extension galleries that may bring sharing restrictions, vendor lock-in, etc. So it’s trying to argue for more openness at least being available as an option to the hybrid user / workflow author. For cases where the user / author wants to be restrictive and lock down who can use the work, the mission is mostly silent on this front. Personally, I would hope most would see value in openness, and known approaches for enforcing restrictions (like DRM) are quite ... unpleasant. I am hopeful better schemes can be created for those who want such things, but it seemed a bit beyond the core focus of the mission (which is already quite ambitious). Thanks for the feedback!