Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Sunir Shah" <sunir AT sunir.org>]

Evan writes,
> I'm stretching my imagination here, and the best I can come up with
> are three arguments against Attribution:
[...]
> I guess I'd probably like to see some better arguments than these. 

I apologize in advance if I'm repeating someone else or
if I'm missing the point of the conversation. I read a
bit before posting, but there is more traffic on this 
list than I can keep up with.

One of your reasons

> 1) The personalization of art is bourgeois and decadent. Art needs to
>   belong to all people communally. Art exists outside the construct
>   of the individual artist, and naming the artist cheapens the art.

is perhaps an iconoclastic version of my reason, but if
you are interested only in seeing your ideas gain influence,
at the sacrifice of your own personal credit, there is great
value in eliminating the attribution requirement. That way
other people can include your work (whole, in part, or 
modified) as the part of their own which they in turn can
claim credit for and make their money. While this may seem
like exploitation, if you're goal is simply to get people
to think and act more in line with your mission, this is a
useful strategy. 

It happens all the time in many places, not just political
or technical. Consider marketing material handed out to
members of some industry council; these are usually free
for use, since the superordinate goal is to increase
awareness of the industry as a whole, not one particular
individual.

SS