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.
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.
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.