Knitter {l Wrote}:The definition of derived work is pretty well explained in the license terms, I don't think it is confusing and I honestly don't believe a full team of layers and reviewers would make such a simple mistake
Which bit are you looking at? I see the definition at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- ... /legalcode , 1c, though it isn't clear to me how that applies to use of art in games. As for mistakes, well I don't think there's any mistakes, just that this is an unclear areas. Licences do sometimes have problems - that's why we get newer versions sometimes. If there's a consensus answer to this, then great - but I've yet to hear anyone actually give me what the answer is to this
Considering the example you mentioned about an executable loading an image, if there is change to the image whatsoever it isn't a derived work, if there is any change then it is a derived work. It's the same as the example stated in the license text about the synchronization of sound within a movie. Naturally, it will be hard to use an image without changing anything in it, media comes in various formats (either file type, sprites, background sizes, models that need rendering, sound samples that need to be converted, etc) that makes the use of the media without falling into the derived works state very hard.
I'm not asking whether the image (modified or not) is a derivative work, I'm asking whether the exe is a derivative work. And it doesn't matter whether you modify an image or not - an unmodified image still has to be distributed under CC-BY-SA (or similar), but that still leaves unanswered whether the licence applies restrictions to the other components of the game too?
But that's why there are compatible licenses, I can release my software in BSD and in CC-BY-SA without problems, the same can't be said to the combination of GPL and CC-BY-SA due to the SA clause, but there are several other possibilities.
It's always possible to release under any multiple licences, because that means people choose which to use. "Compatibility" usually refers to whether you can relicense one as another. So you can't take GPL code and relicense as BSD (nor can you relicense as closed source). You can't take CC-BY-SA art and relicense as BSD (or a non-free licence). But can you have a game that loads a CC-BY-SA image, where the game exe and code is released as BSD (or, as the OP was asking, under a proprietary licence)?