I think you are right. As things are right now, if you have to depend on a person to be in charge of correcting the car's malfunctions during operation, he still has to be as vigilant as a normal driver. Why not have a driver who is fully responsible for the operation of the vehicle? Oh wait! That's not a driverless car.
Well, assuming that we can't go from 100% driver to 100% driverless in one fell swoop, we're temporarily going to have go with a mix of both - which is dangerous for exactly the reason you pointed out. A driver is lulled into a false sense of security and likely to be inattentive. So when something goes wrong, there might be a delayed reaction, possibly with tragic consequences.
And also, of course they should need a license. If you're going to be driving a car at all, you need to have license first. You'll get no argument from me there.
But imho, the end goal of roads filled with automated automobiles is a laudable one. Humans are notoriously accident-prone, as road fatality statistics show. Driverless technologies would be a huge boon and should be pursued.
But I see lots of problems with this on the horizon - from an unwillingness to change to hacking/tampering to skewed perceptions. I'd imagine that if a driverless car drove someone off a cliff, it'd be a national tragedy and the fallout might slow or even reverse adoption of driverless cars. But if a drunk driver plows into a semi, killing 4, the local paper would have a blurb about it but it's otherwise a normal day in America.