I agree that I am not using the "investment definition" of non-dilutive but I am using the realistic one. That is what really matters. If I water down my profit potential, that to me is dilutive.

"When the number of shares outstanding increases, each existing stockholder owns a smaller, or diluted, percentage of the company, making each share less valuable."

Above is the investor definition. Now reverse that and keep the same number of shares but reduce the value of the company due to passing markets on to another party and you reduce the potential value of each share. You might not see the reduction right away and that is why it is done but long term it is less. You might say the share value rose from $4.00 to $40.00 but with keeping all markets, it might have rose to $100. The buyers are buying because of potential profits that you are giving up for short term gain the same as when you sell equity. You give up some long term share appreciation to receive immediate gain to fund operations. With licenses, you give up long term profit to have someone else shoulder some risk and cost to get to that lower profit.