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

[Anthony]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> My question is why do the contributors have to allow OSMF to license
> their contributions under BY-SA and ODbL (and DbCL, don't forget about
> DbCL).  Why can't the contributors do that themselves?

And actually, BY-SA *contains* permission to license derivatives under
BY-SA.  ODbL *contains* permission to license derivatives under ODbL.

DbCL *contains*...well it contains clause 2!

I guess clause 2 is redundant.  It would be sufficient to simply say
"contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL".