The comparison lacks a big item: distributed-ness: the whole git-remote push & pull symmetry. It allows not only offline bare-minimum operation, but full offline development, then later online merging. I don't see any signs that fossil can do the same.
The comparison re. licenses is factually mistaken in several ways, but that's probably not worth a great deal of discussion - it's too religious a topic.
Most comparisons points out the major differences, rather than all the ways they are the same.
As you can see from bullet point #5 from the fossil home page, it works offline:
> CGI/SCGI Enabled - No server is required, but if you want to set one up, Fossil supports four easy server configurations.
and #6 concerns later online merging:
> Autosync - Fossil supports "autosync" mode which helps to keep projects moving forward by reducing the amount of needless forking and merging often associated with distributed projects.
In fact, due to the integration, Fossil supports offline work not only for code, but also for changes in the wiki and the issue tracker. You can do full offline development on code, update documentation in the wiki, comment on issues and change their state and merge all these changes later when you are back online.
The comparison re. licenses is factually mistaken in several ways, but that's probably not worth a great deal of discussion - it's too religious a topic.