I don't know what you're asking. It says "sublicensable" in there, yes.

I think he means that's the most unacceptable from the bunch

Sublicensing is what legally enables things like rich media link previews (the kind you see on Facebook and Twitter) or APIs to exist. Yeah, theoretically they could use that to sell content, but in practice it's generally used to make the web more interoperable.

I think it makes sense if the business relationship is actually artist <--> patreon <---> consumer. The client pays patreon, so patreon must sublicense the content to him. Otherwise I'm lost.