The Upload wizard distorts competition in favour of Creative Commons, for the purpose of creating a monopoly (0). Instead, it would be safer that for every file licensed under a Creative Commons license, one licenses one other file under GFDL and another file under "Art libre", "open source music license", LGPL, etc. One should not put all her eggs in the same basket(1), keeping open the option to switch back to GFDL : one should keep a leverage to pressure the Creative Commons organization, at the very least to ensure that CC 4.0 won't be worse than 3.0, and that 5.0 won't be worse than 4.0. Instead of patching the holes in the CC-BY-SA, the Creative Commons organization is supplying weapons to the ennemy. CC Zero (2), perhaps named after Imperial Japan's fighter aircraft (3), is a weapon of mass destruction against the attributive share-alike community, putting the Creative Commons organization on the side of those who want to reuse contents without crediting the creators. As an open attack on moral rights, that license is morally flawed. Although they created the LGPL (more permissive, yet fully attributive), the Free Software Foundation seems to present its copyleft GPL license as its main license representing their philosophy and what they fight for. On the other hand, the Creative Commons organization has no philosophy and is losing its soul. If the Creative Commons guru decides that CC 4.0 is CC Zero, do we have any legal tool to fight against it ? I am afraid we don't. This would leave us nothing but our eyes to cry with. (0) http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:Upload_wizard/Questions_%26_… (1) I was objected some time ago that I use too many agricultural metaphors. Sorry for this one again, but IANAEP : I am not an English poet ; (2) http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero This one is not an agricultural metaphor.