Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>]

>>>>> "GOB" == Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org> writes:

    GOB> if you don't want attribution, simply say so. the license
    GOB> provides for revoking the attribution requirement.

Glenn: would I have to revoke the requirement for each and every
licensee? Or could I just revoke it once?

Also, AFAICT, revocation means that licensees _must not_ use my
name. Leaving out the Attribution license element means that licensees
_may_ credit me if they wish, but they aren't required to.

    GOB> or don't provide your name. read the actual text of the
    GOB> attribution clause.

It might be useful to describe the mechanics of this. I assume this is
the text we're talking about (emphasis mine):

    "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give
    the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You
    are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable)
    of the Original Author IF SUPPLIED; the title of the Work IF
    SUPPLIED; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform
    Resource Identifier, IF ANY, that Licensor specifies to be
    associated with the Work, [...]"

I'm wondering how I could not supply my name. Would I, as author, have
to go to lengths to remove my name from works in order to "not supply"
them? Or is it sufficient to say something like:

      My Essay About Attribution
      By Evan Prodromou

      This work is available under the Creative Commons
      Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license, with the Original Author
      name and the title unsupplied.

My literalist amateur senses start tingling here; after all, just
_saying_ that the title and name aren't supplied doesn't necessarily
make it so.

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://wikitravel.org/en/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide