The proposed terms are reducible to any license, including CC0 or WTFPL.
For 'code' (which Stack Exchange has not yet defined), the terms Stack Exchange is proposing possess a gaping license-laundering loophole and are legally reducible to CC0 or any other desired license. I'll explain how.
This post states that the new licensing terms will be as follows.
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
- 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.
That "MIT License" (which is really the OSI MIT License or the Expat License) states:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so.
The only restriction the OSI MIT License imposes is the requirement to include a copy of the copyright notice and the permission notice. However, Stack Exchange's proposed terms waive that requirement (see above: "Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement").
This means that:
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, e.g. CC0 or WTFPL.
Anyone receiving such a first derivative work is therefore not required to attribute or to share alike (e.g. in any second derivative works).
Anyone will be able to re-license, in this way, any 'code' posted to Stack Exchange sites.
'Code' posted to Stack Exchange sites can therefore ultimately be used in any way a
plagiarist derivative author wishes. As such, it is effectively CC0 (or WTFPL, etc) licensed.
This loophole means that the proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms ultimately undermines any desire one may have that Stack Exchange contributors should be required to be treated with respect and acknowledgement by users of their contributions.
This answer is based on my answer here.