I recently posted an answer to which a useful edit was suggested. It added a paragraph to the answer, and got rejected as an attempt to reply. It actually made a good point, and I ended up adjusting my answer because of it. I hadn't seen this situation before, so I came and searched on MSO to see if there was a way to approve the edit anyway, despite the rejection, and came across Allow the owner of a post to approve a suggested edit even if it was rejected by reviewers, which I support.
In the meantime, though, I notice that most of the answers to those sorts of inquiries are the general advice "copy and paste the edit anyway." For instance, see some of the replies to User suggested great corrective edit to my answer, but the edit was rejected. What can I do to approve it?.
Now, for little things like typographical and grammatical errors, that doesn't seem like a problem. For bigger edits like the one that I ran into though, this seems like it would run afoul of the attribution requirement; the suggesting contributor contributed according to the license mentioned at the bottom of every page: "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required." For accepted edits, attribution is preserved in the edit history. If someone copies and pastes text from a rejected suggested edit and doesn't give attribution to the suggester, this would seem to violate the license. Plenty of answers get deleted for copying and pasting text from other answers without attribution; wouldn't the same apply here?
Does copying and pasting contributions from suggested edits into a post without attribution violate the attribution requirement?
Note: To be clear, it's not hard to provide attribution in the case of incorporating a rejected suggested edit's text; my concern is that it seems like the current suggested practice is simply to copy and paste it it into the post, and that seems like it omits the attribution requirement.