How do CC licenses (0, BY, BY-SA) affect proprietary/closed source applications?

Question

I think this question is specific to indie developers be concerned about. Think about it as a "license clarification" or a "license practical use case".

I need to know how must be my project basic packages structure and how can I distribute it?

I am an app developer, I have no site yet, I will just create the code (package (B) will be my placeholder assets I manage to create with my very limited skills, or assets I could buy later to let my project have some unique visual/sfx/music features, if it does not conflict with package (C) in any way that could cause me trouble).

I thought:
A) a binary proprietary executables application package (no source distribution).
B) a media/assets package of proprietary media (could be packed together with (A)).
C) a media/assets package of CC content.

The problem about package (C) is:

1. Is CC-0 the only CC content I can be tranquil about? I will have to redistribute it at least as CC-BY package according to this: if-i-create-a-collection-that-includes-a-work-offered-under-a-cc-license-which-licenses-may-i-choose-for-the-collection
2. How ok is to use CC-BY and CC-BY-SA content on package (C)? As I read, any CC-BY-SA, at least, interfere with screenshots, videos and any other promoting media (but that promoting media is not too much troublesome to me at least, unless I create cut-scenes with my own project).
3. Does any CC-BY-SA content affect package (A) or (B) in any way other than specified at (2)? So (A) or (B) would have to fall under some CC license?
4. Does this CC-BY-SA clause "For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." will force me to freely distribute my project as open source about the synchronization code part of my project engine (or even the full source code)? considering the project may be seen as a "performance".
5. The package (C) may be required for the application to run, so, in this case of unbreakable dependency, will it affect the application license in any way? Also, in case I am able to make the application run without it, would the application still be affected by it?
6. May I distribute package (C) together with my application solely, and later on, users (who bought it) may redistribute package (C) freely and even publish it on sites that redistribute CC content? Or am I forced to promptly make that package freely available on my site (or at the site that will sell it) and/or on some other site? Or can I only distribute it from some other site and only link to it from my site?

PS.: License code excerpts confirming the answer are mostly appreciated! I've been trying to read and understand it all, but it is surely not easy to me... Other granted sources of information like FAQs or another kind, may be good enough too (as they usually refer to the license code trying to make it more easy to understand).

PS.2: to anyone interested, some interesting common sense notions to be aware about public domain media: http://pixabay.com/en/blog/posts/public-domain-images-what-is-allowed-and-what-is-4/

Answer 1

I have done some searching into the subject and found this flow-chart to start with: http://creativecommons.org.au/content/licensing-flowchart.pdf

Following the flow-chart, You have to consider what public-domain means in CC0:

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ

Essentially, once some work is CC0, no attribution is required. You can claim copyright of a work that includes it, without special notice of it creator, but you cannot claim copyright over the work itself. CC0 (by some other creator) means it is not GPL or open-source, because you do not have to perpetuate any kind of license and you can use it commercially -- you merely can't claim that you are the licensed work's creator. That's what no-rights-reserved means.

If you are interested in releasing code in a openly usable license, LGPL, MIT, and CC-BY are pretty comparable and should be considered. Including licensed work in your work is a good thing -- It's part of the meaning of community and synergy -- so it is perfectly good to create and use works that require licenses be embedded or distributed with the final commercial product. And actually, in most cases of even GPL works, you can use the code in commercial products or services, as long as the GPL licensed works are properly represented and made available within the products or services (you can only do this if only one or more components are GPL, and the compiling libraries allow full commercial rights to the software creators).