this website seems very biased to me as it is written by a Microsoft company.

• it uses overly complex legal mumbo jumbo to describe the copyleft licenses, while describing the non-copyleft ones in friendly terms "A short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring..." making them more appealing somehow.
• it mentions a permission to PATENT things, with all licenses. when software patents must be banned, and in practices only exist in some weird loophole in the EU. While FSF site reads as "GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the program's contributors and redistributors. " (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html )
• it propagates the meme that allowing ppl to make proprietary crap out of your software is "permissive". like if having the right to own slaves would give you... more freedom...?