No subject

issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in
unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions,
constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are
assembled into a collective whole"

I think the language of this text is very clear about the character of
the things which are considered a collection... it's something where
multiple wholly independent works and stitched together.  Not
something where where works have been combined to produce an enhanced
work.

But this has come up, and it seemed pretty conclusive to me that
people on the cc-lists thought it was okay under SA to create an
non-free work out of SA ones.

If thats actually the intent I presume the license text will
eventually be changed to allow it, even if it doesn't today.

Perhaps I mistaken in claiming it was the intent, I don't know the
intent. I do know that Lessig claimed it was the current operation,
and went as far as to claim that the FDL had the same behavior when it
was argued that the FDL was better in this regard. That claim defied a
common sense reading of the license, and was firmly and unambigously
rejected by the FSF.

[snip]
> But BY-SA is not generally intended to be weak copyleft.  It goes out of
> its way to say that merely syncing audio and video creates a derivative,
> with the SA requirement, for example.

It was argued in those threads that the video/audio case is special.
I didn't really understand that argument.  But I don't really
understand the application for a copyleft license which, in the case
of images, doesn't encoumber across the number typical method of
building new works from images. (i.e. stock photography)

> Of course if an article that includes image is considered an adaption of
> the image, this only serves to highlight the need for some form of
> FDL/BY-SA compatibility. :)

Absoultely.

Thats also a reason why we encourage people to dual license their
works.  (And a fairly large number of our contributors do so).