It seems that one of the community's main aversions to changing from the current CC license, to a more permissive MIT license, is the idea that people seem to not want to simply give code away.
[O]ur intention is to share code for discussion, not to give it away
We're not here as free, near public domain, code writers
This then begs the question, what is it about CC BY-SA 3.0 that makes it so much more desirable than MIT?
- Is it because you specifically don't want people to be able to use the code in real-world software projects?
- I find that hard to believe. It doesn't hold up, because CC does allow people to use the code in real-world software projects. Just as long as they fulfill the ShareAlike requirement.
Further, why is a viral, copyleft license so preferable?
- Is it because you want the code to have proper attribution and remain visible, even in derivative works?
- This sounds like the spirit of Creative Commons.
Then GNU GPLv3 is the license for you.
GNU GPL has the major benefit over CC that it is compatible with major software projects in The Real WorldTM. Simultaneously, it is very similar to CC in that it is copyleft, and requires author attribution, as defined in the terms and conditions.