I fear the question is founded on a misunderstanding: that CC is specifically for non-executable forms of digital content.
As we've said here before, the problem with using CC licences for source code is that they're not specifically intended for code, so they make no mention of source availability and entitlement. Having free access to binary computer code is a lot less useful if you don't have access to the Complete Corresponding Source, and the rights to copy, modify, and distribute that, so licences like the GPL are clear about giving users rights to this. CC licences don't mention source code. It's not that they say they can't be used for source code, they just don't treat that source as a special partner to binary code, in the way (eg) the GPL does.
So the CC family of licences seem to be the "universal" licences you seek, in that they can be applied to all digital content. But when you apply them to digital content which is executable, you don't empower the users as fully as when you use a copyleft licence designed specifically for use with code. Thus, the dichotomy.