If it's not source code, he doesn't care how closed or restricted it is. It's what the computer does, not what you do with what the computer does that is his interest.
Creative Commons has adopted the language of "Free Culture Approved" for licenses which meet this definition. Not all CC licenses do (in particular, non-commercial or no derivatives clauses are incompatible).
What's the difference between that and being allowed to sample or re-edit music and video and redistribute it?
The closest he gets to extending out of his little bubble is that copyright should be 10 years only and then everything is public.