IMO the substantive points of practical difference are vastly important: the obligations of GPLv3 vs Apache 2.0 are not the same...
The whole document is a side-discussion never addressing the changes in obligations. It's about the supposed predominance of license-signaling over what is actually written and wanted by licenses. It even randomly talks about AGPL at one point, without any specific reason for doing that, except somehow qualifying it as a "pariah" license, maybe in an attempt to associate the GPL a little with that derogative qualification.
This reads as if they do not actually give a fuck about the actual effects of the various license but only about second order effects caused by some mainly folklore signaling. The first sentence of "Why Shift Licenses" could even be taken directly as an argument for not doing it. I find the whole thing extremely sad.