Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Nathan Jones <nathan-cc AT optimo.com.au>]

Thank you Evan, Greg and James for your replies. Rather than reply to
your comments individually, I'll just make a few notes here...

James Grimmelmann wrote:
>I think this language means you want the work go out anonymous.  If you 
>don't want that, but instead want people to have the option not to name 
>you, you could say, "You may use either [my name] or no name to identify 
>the author of this work."  Does that seem like a reasonable solution?

This sounds good. I'll try that. (Or just use a 1.0 licence.) I don't
have a need to stop people from attributing - just don't care enough
about attribution to Require it.

Evan Prodromou wrote:
>do you _really_ think that anyone won't distribute or perform your
>work just because you require authorship and title attribution?

No. On further reflection and a re-reading of the licence, attribution is
very easy (a simple "by Nathan Jones" should suffice). The more onerous
task for the person using or distributing is making clear the licence
terms. And no one can reasonably say that CC licences would work if you
could just redistribute without the licence!

In a sense, what I really need to do before releasing any work is to
think about whether a public domain dedication is the best choice. In
many cases it will be. On occasion, though, it is nice to be able to
reserve some rights, which is where CC comes in. (Full copyright doesn't
sit well with me, especially the lengthy terms of copyright.)

-- 
Nathan Jones