Hi Vito, I thought I’d respond here since I don’t want to steer the other post off-topic.
and it makes the licensing of the code unambiguous
No, it does not. Many don’t even know the license here
Definitely true. Someone looking to use code from the forum though can be reassured that people have agreed to license their contribution under CC-BY-4.0.
not to say that all have to follow that license (if a link gets shared, the provided content, definitively does not fall under the forum license, if you mean that by unambiguous)
If a link gets shared, the poster is not reproducing the link’s content on the forum and therefore not licensing it. If a poster reproduces someone elses’ work on the forum, they of course need to have the right to do so; if they do, the situation becomes unabiguous. (I was part of a case where the poster didn’t actually have the rights to the code: here. I chose to reproduce the code so that it’s clear that taking the code from the forum (from my post) would not be copyright infringement.)
In this case I asked you to share the code yourself since as the author, you definitely have the right to reproduce it and grant a license to others.
Any code snippet shared there can be used in binary or compiled form without any attribution. A user can add a license that adds the need for attribution.
IANAL, but I think that’s not fully correct, or at least not in an airtight way. You are reusing most of the language from Github, but one of the differences is “you agree to allow others to view and use that snippet.” I read this as users granting a license, but the license’s terms are not specified beyond that.
I assume a lawyer would be wary of this, and would prefer a more rigorous license such as a CC one. For example, it is not made clear (as far as I could tell) whether the “allow others to view and use” license can later be revoked. There are also jurisdictions where the extent to which rights can be signed away are limited (e.g. Germany: “A waiver of the author’s right as such is not valid under German copyright law”—source (p. 10)—although I’m not sure whether this would be considered an illegal waiver of rights).
CC0, as a comparable dedication to require no attribution and grant unlimited rights, is rather wordy and addresses possible pitfalls: Legal Code - CC0 1.0 Universal - Creative Commons
Overall, I think regarding the unambiguousness point I was making, it would be easier and safer to specify that users agree to apply CC0 to their snippet—and I remain fairly confident that as far as the forum goes, it does help users to have the code directly here, including license-wise.
(I know you removed that part from your post later, but there’s of course no expectation to maintain forum answers.)