Of course, I can argue that this is an "obvious fact"; that this is a "direct translation" of a definition from an English or French Wiktionary, and under the general license there is no violation at all; that this article in the PIV is not a "unique statement" and will not constitute any labor to prove that such a definition since the death of Shakespeare himself has already been given more than once, and you can find examples both in the "public domain" and in sources "prohibiting even citing"; that no court in the world will agree to accept the claim for such a definition ...