(redirected from licenser)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia.

be a license to print money

Of an activity, business model, or company, to yield very high profits but require little or no effort to do so. Primarily heard in US. All these hefty parking fees and fines are just a license to print money for the city. These trashy gossip magazines are of such low quality, yet they always fly off the shelves. The whole racket is a license to print money.
See also: license, money, print

license to do something

permission, right, or justification to do something. You have no license to behave in that manner! Who granted you license to enter my house without knocking?
See also: license

poetic license

liberties or license of the type taken by artists, especially poets, to violate patterns of rhyme, harmony, structure, etc. I couldn't tell whether he kept making spelling mistakes or if it was just poetic license.
See also: license, poetic

*(a) right to something

 and *(the) right to something
a privilege or license to have something. (*Typically: get ~; have ~; give someone ~.) I have the right to have the kind of house I want. You have a right to any house you can afford.
See also: right

be a licence to print money

  (British & Australian) also be a license to print money (American)
if a company or activity is a licence to print money, it causes people to become very rich without having to make any effort These shopping channels are just a licence to print money.
See also: licence, money, print

poetic license

the way in which writers and other artists are allowed to ignore rules or change facts in their work It's obvious the writer was using a certain amount of poetic licence because the route she mentions has been closed for 50 years.
See also: license, poetic

poetic license

Also, artistic license. The liberty taken by a writer or artist in deviating from conventional form or fact to achieve an effect. For example, I've never seen grass or a tree of that color; but that's artistic license. [Late 1700s]
See also: license, poetic
References in periodicals archive ?
To sum up, there is evidence that some PIs require their licenser to be overt.
But what can this licenser be in (17), given that negation is lower than the PI?
29) Some lexically marked PIs must be c-commanded by their licenser at S-structure.
But they have scope over the whole sentence, not just over the subject DPs; yet the subject DPs must crucially count as licensers, otherwise there would be no C-COMMANDING licenser for the PIs and (29) would be violated.
As a first step in providing a principled reason for the generalization (27), the overtness requirement can be understood as follows: some PIs are lexically marked in such a way as to require a licenser in a particular configuration (where what counts as PI and licenser is expressed in terms of features); since this requirement applies after syntax, abstract elements do not count, because they do not appear at morphological structure.
Clearly, not the semantic interpretation, because what matters semantically is that PIs are in the scope of their licenser, and this is true of all PIs.
9) Moreover, languages where subject PIs can precede negation (as in [22] and [23]) show that licensing is in principle available in that configuration; then, if an English PI is raised to subject position for independent reasons, as in (5a), the PI and its licenser should be in the appropriate configuration for licensing, which is apparently not the case.
27) All PIs must lie in the scope of a licenser; some (like any N) additionally require that the licenser be c-commanding and spelled out.
Apparently, the additional requirement in these cases is that the licenser be overt.
I hypothesize that those polarity items that require a preceding overt licenser are morphologically defective: their feature bundle lacks an operator feature, but this feature is necessary for their lexicalization.
Polarity items must, by definition, lie inside the scope of their licenser; items like any N, in addition, appear to require a c-commanding and overt licenser.
On the one hand, this must be a representation that only includes material on its way to be phonologically interpreted; if it also contained null elements, the necessity of overt licensers and the role of overtness in general would lose their explanation.
One thing that is clear is that there cannot be any question of a single affix shared by all PIs in the relevant class (or by their licensers, for that matter).
As regards their featural content, all licensers share at least one property: that of being operators, as opposed to arguments or descriptive predicates.
Just as [operator] can have many values, I take [dependent] to be a feature whose values range over the possible licensers.