Is even CC now unacceptable among the free culture fundamentalists?

The only argument is about some of the "non-free" variants: NonCommercial and NonDerivatives. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/35773

I'm quite confident that he wouldn't have.

Explain? Is this some offshoot from the original Creative Commons licenses that Aaron co-invented?

See http://freedomdefined.org/Definition and https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8051.

(This parallels the distinction between free software, on the one hand, and freeware and shareware, on the other hand.)

I don't recall Aaron's views about this issue, so I'm not asserting that he would have been upset about this. It should probably be possible to find documentation of his opinions.

A licence like that, applied to software, would not count as Open Source, nor as Free Software. Hence it is not Free in spirit.

On the other hand, even if you remove the NonCommercial provision it is still not equivalent to Open Source or Free Software, as the actual source is not being distributed, merely the end result.

Sure, it's easier to mashup video than compiled executables or libraries, but even CC is not quite equivalent to a software license.

Well, it says in the campaign text:

WE HAVE ALSO DECIDED AFTER THE FILM IS COMPLETED TO RELEASE THE RAW INTERVIEW FOOTAGE AND POST IT TO THE INTERNET ARCHIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO THROUGH A SIMILAR CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.

(caps in original)

Excellent point. A truly open source movie (like the Blender Foundation flims) would release all the unedited source materials for other people to use themselves. Creative Commons is just the first (minimum) step towards an open project.