You think that the legal definition of licenses doesn't apply to a legal concept?
Yes but I'm not talking about legal licenses!!!!!odfjasodfnasdkf
There are licenses as compromises and licenses as legal notices. I'm talking about the first. That's why you don't use a legal dictionary to define it.
I already know what a license is, and you don't want to acknowledge that by definition and function it's "permitting" people to do what is otherwise both Unlawful (Claiming exclusivity over ideas) and illegal (Exclusive Right to copy) that's your prerogative.
You mean the creator? Yeah, it would be unlawful and utterly absurd for anyone other than the creator to claim exclusive ownership and right to copy a piece of content.
Except that you won't find a jury of 12 to even hear your case. Good luck wasting your time on LICENSES fees with the copyright office because even if you try to bring a Sovereign to court they will laugh at you from the land, and thumb all your Private Laws.
You're talking about the US legal system here and I still don't understand why you consider state laws to be unheedable private laws. Good luck to you when you're dragged to court and you claim that the state's laws concerning copyright licenses don't concern you.