[burnished]

Well, I think this case is made pretty unambiguous in that sense given that any interpretation that included licenses with nontrivial requirements would also be clearly deceptive and unenforceable.

And after doing some digging it looks like I am correct in that the ambiguous offer could easily be construed as a license. [1] states > A license can be oral or arise by implication when considering all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction between the copyright owner and the purported licensee.

And [2] also supports that, though I won't do a direct quote. The search that surfaced this was differences between copyright licenses and assignments.

Thanks! I've been curious about this for a while and in the process of editing my reply to you I stumbled on the right searches

[1] https://www.edwardallenlaw.com/difference-between-copyright-...

[2] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyr....