MIT=good, GPLv3=meh, not the other way around

Hi - I came across this project from the oxc readme and it looks interesting. However I noticed that in the feature comparison table, it lists the GPLv3 license as "good" where eslint's and Rome's MIT licenses as "meh". While GPLv3 might protect _this_ project better, there's no way GPLv3 is better from the point of view of someone who is considering using it or modifying it. GPLv3 is much more restrictive and many companies don't even allow usage of GPLv3 licensed software without explicit approval. So, I'm opening this PR to make this less misleading for anyone not familiar with those licenses.

website/public/index.ejs.html

@@ -605,11 +605,11 @@ <h2 id="linter-feature-comparison">Features</h2>
             </tr>
             <tr>
               <th class="hide-in-mobile">license</th>
-              <td class="good quick-lint-js">free<br />GPLv3</td>
-              <td class="meh">open source<br />MIT</td>
-              <td class="meh hide-in-mobile">open source<br />MIT</td>
-              <td class="meh">open source<br />MIT</td>
-              <td class="meh hide-in-mobile">open source<br />MIT</td>
+              <td class="meh quick-lint-js">free<br />GPLv3</td>
+              <td class="good">open source<br />MIT</td>
+              <td class="good hide-in-mobile">open source<br />MIT</td>
+              <td class="good">open source<br />MIT</td>
+              <td class="good hide-in-mobile">open source<br />MIT</td>
             </tr>
             <tr>
               <th class="hide-in-mobile">JSX</th>