The comparison section says the MIT license is not "free" because it's not copyleft. How come is more permissive considered less free?
> Expat License (#Expat) > > This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
It's a table comparing Olive to Vanilla. In the "feature" column there is a row for "Free Software".
It's not saying one is less free than the other. It's saying what you already know: MIT license is not copyleft.
That's exactly what it says. There is a big fat in that row as if Tailwind were not Free Software because it is not Copyleft. If he wanted to point that out he could have used a separate row and written " (not copyleft though)" or something like that.
https://www.osweekly.com/free-software-vs-open-source-why-th...
An MIT-licensed project trying to not scare people away might have the same comparison table in their readme. They'd just flip around the green checkmark and red X.