**Please don't do this.**

My understanding is that for 'code' (whatever that is), the terms you are proposing possess a gaping license-laundering loophole and are legally reducible to [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). Here is my reasoning:

The [post above](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/272956) proposes the following new licensing terms.

> Starting March 1, 2016, new contributions across the network will be
> licensed to the public under the following terms:
> 
>  - Non-code contributions will continue to be available for use under the terms of CC-BY-SA
>  - Code contributions will be available for use under the terms of [the MIT License][2]
>  - You don’t have to include the full MIT License in your code base. Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT
> License’s notice preservation requirement, as long as users give
> reasonable attribution. This optional exception to the MIT License
> will live in our terms of service.

This means that:

1. A first generation derivative work would have to include attribution, but would be able to be distributed under a license not requiring attribution or sharing alike.

1. Anyone receiving such a first derivative work is therefore not required to attribute or to share alike.

1. Anyone will be able to re-license code posted to Stack Exchange sites in this way.

1. Code posted to Stack Exchange site and re-licensed in this way can therefore be used in any way the <s>plagiarist</s> derivative author wishes. It is therefore effectively CC0 licensed.