Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

matt draghi wrote:
> Does anyone know if there is a license for share alike, not requiring 
> attribution?
>
> I  have some artwork I want to license as such, and don't want people to be 
> forced to say I made it if they copy or modify a copy. I am not even sure I 
> want to force them to say what kind of license it has. I do however want to 
> restrict people from restricting the copying or modifying of their copies 
> or 
> modified copies.
> 
> I have been trying to find such a license and could not find one at 
> creative 
> commons. The closest one I found was a GPL kind, that was primarily written 
> for software, but I think also could appy to anything considered a "work". 
> That one still required stating the license though. Is there any problem 
> with taking an existing license, removing the title and changing some of 
> the 
> words to make it more like what I want? Incase any of this sounds 
> uninformed 
> it is because I have just begun researching this.

There was a plain ShareAlike license in version 1.0:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/

That said, I would just recommend using the 3.0 BY-SA, and stating
explicitly that you don't require any attribution.  The attribution
clause is written in such a way that if you don't ask for a credit, the
licensee isn't required to provide one.  They will, however, still be
required to retain the CC notice and to license any derivative works
using the same license.

James