Why would the license matter in cases where your actions aren't restricted by patent law and you don't need to accept any license and any limitations in it?

If you have a valid patent for e.g "A Device or Appparatus that does FooBar", you get certain exclusive rights for just that - that device is the "patented invention" where making/using/selling one is an infringement of the patent, but the description of that device (for example, the patent text itself) is not. A book about doing FooBar isn't a device that does FooBar, and neither is a tutorial or a blog post - the description of the patent is public, the knowledge in it is public, and you're legally allowed to redistribute that knowledge.

However, using the "patented invention" is an infringement[1], with no exceptions, so if the reader of that book or blog post would like to follow it and actually implement the patented method or follow the patented process in the privacy of their home, that would technically be a violation even if they are unlikely to be sued as the patent holder won't find out about it.

[1] 35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Obviously a device because when hardware peopl say product they don't mean book or youtube video.

These aren't "hardware people" writing the licenses, they're "legal people", i.e. lawyers.

It's way too legible to be written by lawyers. At most lawyer read this and said "sure, why not".