[OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?

[Steve Bennett]

Hi all,
  [preamble: I've really ignored the whole CT and licensing debate
until now. But with NearMap now removed as a Potlatch editing source,
I'm more interested - my contribution to OSM is essentially on hold
until this is resolved]

Just wondering if someone could summarise what the deal with clause 2
is, since that's the one NearMap objects to most:

"Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF
a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other.
These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any
field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the
right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees.
To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright
conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or
its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents."

I don't want to join the debate at this stage, but I'd like to hear
what motivated this clause. If someone could give a relatively neutral
summary of the arguments on both sides, I'd be very appreciative. I'm
particularly interested because it seems unusual and somewhat
unnecessary (eg, Wikipedia doesn't require you to give up any rights
to the Wikimedia Foundation - you just license your contributions, and
they use them the same as anyone else could, given that licence). But
I'm probably missing a lot.

Thanks in advance,
Steve