They’re ALL equally bad in principle, but the shorter/less restrictive ones are less damaging in practice.

You’re just NOW figuring out that CC licencing (and the GPL) have “a hidden agenda?”
Geez.

Actually, it’s not all that “hidden”, and — importantly — it never was.

From square 1, the GPL, and ALL other so-called “free licenses” suffer from one basic flaw: namely, they ARE “licenses”.

From the moment you concede that there IS such a thing as a “rights-holder” with the power to permit — or deny — particular uses, whether that “rights-holder” does so in a “permissive” fashion (like the GPL licenses) OR a “restrictive” fashion (the RIAA) ultimately makes no difference, as far as the basic principle.

The “Free software” and “creative Commons” licenses are in fundamental agreement with the RIAA, up to — and including — the fact that many of them advocate using the DMCA if those “free” licenses are violated.

The GPL and CC licenses ARE fundamentally opposed to the “public domain”, because the public domain allows NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS OF CONDITIONS AT ALL.

That’s why I personally believe that it’s dishonest to claim that the GPL “restores freedom” of any kind. The only way such “freedom” could be restored, would be for the monopoly privilege upon which such licenses depend — copy”right” — to either be repealed, or allowed to expire.