You're precisely right, and this explains
precisely why Tim O'Reilly abuses language
to refer to a "freedom of an author to
decide his licensing terms." In fact, such
a freedom is impossible. Ever heard of "void
where prohibited by law"? Licenses are contracts
meant to enforce certain exclusive rights as
secured by copyright & patent laws. Such rights
exist ONLY where secured by these laws.
For what purpose do such laws exist? The US
Constitution makes it very clear, "for the
advancement of the useful arts and sciences,"
"Congress shall have the power to secure for
authors exlusive rights to their works FOR A
LIMITED TIME." There are many differences
between ordinary property rights and the
misnamed "intellectual property rights."
First and foremost, the latter do not preexist.
They exist only at the pleasure of the legislature
and elected officials. Clearly, they exist only
to benefit the public, not the small minority
of people who actually directly earn royalties
as a result of them. Why on earth would the
majority of people direct their representatives
to pass laws guaranteeing big profits to a small minority at THEIR expense, simply because of some fictive "right" that a small, self-interested minority might want to demand?
The idea is that, by enjoying these monopoly
rights, talented authors will be encouraged to
devote more time to their work, and to make it
widely available to the public. This serves
"the advancement of the useful arts and sciences,"
and therefore the interests of the general public
(in theory, at any rate, and only so long as
corrupt influence peddling and monstrosities like
the DMCA don't overtake us, as they already have.)
Unlike ordinary property rights, no one anticipates that any more than a small minority of people could ever in practice exercise such "intellectual" rights. Many people do commendable intellectual work in the course of carrying out many worthy trades -- carpenters, plumbers, etc. But they do not enjoy the privilege of "intellectual property rights."
This is why the Framers of our Constitution gave Congress the power to recognize such rights. But they did not mandate it. And they clearly described the purpose such "rights." And that purpose has nothing to do with those who exercise them themselves.