That's how I read it as well, in part because the
wording is that "The
license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited
by the following restrictions". If this is a limitation on the grant of
license, I don't see how else to read it (inside the US). I'm not sure what
courts would do. Would they would look to the intent of the CC lawyers, or
would they look to the intent of the copyright owner? Could the license be
interpreted differently in different court cases (obviously yes, but it
could it *legitimately* be interpreted differently)?
Again, IANAL, but as far as I know, intent is only relevant when the
wording is ambiguous. I don't think it is in this case, it's perfectly
clear to me what it means, and that just isn't what the authors
intended it to mean.