I'm familiar with the case. The comment isn't out of context; you (and other posters) need to recognize that IP rights are composite rights, like real estate.
In real estate, you can own a plot of land and provide others with permissions associated with the land; maybe they're allowed to walk over a path that runs through your land. That permission is not equivalent to all possible permissions associated with the land - although maybe some ancillary ones are implied in. Maybe people are allowed to bike over the path too, but they certainly aren't allowed to dump broken washing machines there.
Similarly, in IP I can grant you a set of rights related to my product without giving you ALL rights related to my product.
To use your own analogy it seems like we are only talking about one singular right. Making derivative work thereof. If not can you clarify your position?
In real estate, you can own a plot of land and provide others with permissions associated with the land; maybe they're allowed to walk over a path that runs through your land. That permission is not equivalent to all possible permissions associated with the land - although maybe some ancillary ones are implied in. Maybe people are allowed to bike over the path too, but they certainly aren't allowed to dump broken washing machines there.
Similarly, in IP I can grant you a set of rights related to my product without giving you ALL rights related to my product.