@KGM: None of the CC licenses should be used for software. It's discouraged by CC (the organization) and pretty much any other organization). It's might not be the end of the world, nor is it neccessarily unethical, the discouragement is more for practical reasons; these licenses were simply not designed for software.
The discussion you linked to was about a DRAFT of a CC license. And it's from 2013. It might be outdated by now. But if that problem they showed has not been fixed in the final version, that would indeed suck badly and turn the entire CC project into a laughingstock and basically makes the ShareAlike clause pointless. CC BY-SA would probably still be a free license, but with broken copyleft.
Also, 4.0d4, WTF? This would mean this loophole (if it's real) managed to survive unnoticed through versions 1.0 to 3.0!
I think you should join the CC mailing list and start discussing things since you started picking up mails full of technical jargon, that was probably not an accident. I have the feeling you might have something to say to them. I have no idea if they plugged the loophole by now.
Anyway, CC licenses are not recommended for software anyway, let's not forget that.
That was the one thing …
As your your “story”: As it's just made up, it doesn't proof anything. Also, I think you are trying very hard to delude and convince yourself of a danger that doesn't exist.
Your conclusion does not make sense. The danger you outlined is that you use the work of
someone else, violate some supposed right and get attacked for it. This can happen with normal copyright or any license if you violate the terms.
However, this is about
someone else's copyrighted stuff. As for your
own stuff, you don't have to worry. You cannot technically violate your own copyright or license. You have the right to do (basically) whatever with your stuff, nobody can sue you for your own work, no matter the license. Also, your story is
awfully specific. This also could only work if there's a trademark to violate to begin with. Not every programmer registers trademarks. Also note that trademark is a whole new can of worms, separate from copyright.
You always have the danger of violating someone, no matter how you license your
own stuff. Therefore, your conclusion is flawed: It does not make sense to lock down your stuff because you might get sued for violating your own license. That's simply not possible. You never must obey your own license. You are not more or less under a threat of copyright infringement for the license you choose for your own stuff.
The
correct conclusion for a person who is paranoid about copyright would be to avoid publicly (re-)using other people's stuff with unclear permissions. That is, if you're paranoid at all, of course.
I heard of some server admins who don't even dare to RELEASE their stuff, as EVEN if they would choose an unfree license, their code could be stolen. Beautiful work therefore gets (almost) hidden from this community.
This might be justified for privacy reasons. Also, it's not neccessarily unethical since nobody's freedom is removed. The only user is the programmer, and they have all the freedoms, obviously. It is not a goal of the free software movement to
force people to share all code ever written with the world. That would be quite draconian and anti-freedom, actually.