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

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> I guess clause 2 is redundant.  It would be sufficient to simply say
> "contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL".

Except that Clause 3 contains " or another free and open license."

But otherwise, yes, that does seem a lot simpler:

OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 2.0

1. You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright
holder (to the extent the Contents include any copyrightable
elements). You represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to
grant the license in Section 2 below and that such license does not
violate any law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your
knowledge, infringe any third party’s rights. If You are not the
copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and warrant that You
have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents
and grant the license below.

2 Rights granted. You irrevocably license the Contents under all of
the following: CC-BY-SA 2.0, DbCL 1.0, ODbL 1.0.

Anyway, I'm very late to this discussion so I'm sure this dead horse
is well and truly beaten.

(No nitpicking on DbCL vs ODbL please - I'm not familiar with them)

Steve