currently, it seems like a Creative Commons licence, (prefereably by-sa) may be most appropriate and in keeping with the current, yet depcicxated DSL licence. it covers 'media' (ie. images,sound,texts,etc+) more effectively in a wide number of juristictions than many alternatives.
however, this poses problems, since it is most likely incompatible with the DSFG and some interpretations of 'free' as imposed by the FSF and/or GFDL. this means, on a practical level, there are issues in using material on the libarynth in software documentation or utilising code. Therefore, the suggestion is that material is licenced depending on how it will be used; ie. if in software then a “GPL-Compatible, Free Software License” (as defined by the FSF), if documentation, then CC. What are the implications for this strategy?
CC is becoming widely understood and used, clarity is also important (for machines and ppl), in this way it is a long way ahead. for example » http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/