Erik Moeller wrote:
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
I think your parenthetical permission would be extremely necessary for us, because otherwise the hundreds of cc-by-sa images we have in our own GFDL Wikipedia articles would have licensing problems. IIRC, "our" position, mostly as expressed by Jimmy a few years ago, has been the opposite---that putting an image in a Wikipedia article is mere aggregation, and doesn't trigger the license of either the image or the text. Of course what we say we think the license is doesn't magically make it so, but we should probably not take an official position that would make our own usage not compliant...
-Mark