Hi @hugh, yes, I agree entirely with a), including that this is an overwhelming advantage over CC-BY over any of the licenses with the NC or SA restrictions. Those works licensed BY-NC-SA and those licensed BY-SA are in permanently estranged silos, unable to be remixed together, and this was an avoidable tragedy. That said, out of necessity our institution uses some of the textbooks found in the Saylor bookshelf (the ones they salvaged from Flat World Knowledge), which are BY-NC-SA. It’s not at all our preference, but better them than nothing.
And like you, I don’t consider ND to be open at all. If openness is a colour spectrum, then ND works are far infrared at best.
As for b-i), we disagree a bit in that I don’t want works to have any legal restrictions when they can be avoided. That said, I will say that while I don’t prefer a legal requirement for attribution, I do support attribution as a cultural norm, and I also believe that even in cases where attribution isn’t strictly prohibited that’s no defence of plagiarism. For example, legally I could publish Romeo and Juliet under my own name, but I’d be laughed into oblivion and rightly so.
On b-ii), any notice to that effect would do that, it doesn’t take a license.
On b-iii), I’m unsure why CC-BY would do this any better than CC0, but I’d be willing to entertain an argument to that effect.
But I’m only telling you this because you asked. On balance, an attribution requirement is awfully inoffensive, and considering that’s the last one percent of a long journey towards complete openness I’d rather argue about it someday when we actually get there. So given the current landscape I’ll happily support Rebus calling for CC-BY as the OER standard – anything less would feel like complaining that the pony you gave me for Christmas was the wrong colour.