> copyright, which is applied by default if you say nothing But does not allow reuse. So it's irrelevant to a discussion of what to do if you do want to allow

> copyright, which is applied by default if you say nothing But does not allow reuse. So it's irrelevant to a discussion of what to do if you do want to allow reuse. > you can already sue people for using it or claiming it as theirs, and just choose not to But that puts anyone who wants to reuse your content in good faith at the mercy of your whim about whether or not to sue them. That is not a good basis for facilitating reuse. > this whole change feels self-defeating to me Meaning, fixing the attribution clauses in CC so that people have a reasonable time to cure violations before the $150K lawsuit threat? I don't see how that makes CC licenses any more or less "toothless" than they were before. It increases the difficulty of copyleft trolling, which was what it was intended to do. Yes, it means a 30 day delay after you give notice before you can sue someone for violating your license--but anyone who fixes the violation within 30 days of you giving them notice is not someone you want to sue anyway, because they're a good faith user. If we're talking about individuals or small businesses, what makes any license toothless in our current legal environment is the cost of a lawsuit. If you're an individual or small business and large corporation X reuses your content without meeting the terms of your license, whether it's the original CC or the current one, and refuses to fix the violation (presumably because it would be bad for their business), you're basically SOL anyway: you will run out of money to keep a lawsuit going long before corporation X runs out of legal devices to delay or obstruct you. No amount of rejiggering of a license is going to change that. Nor, for that matter, will not giving any license and relying on copyright law: you're still in the same position.