The other ARM license is an ISA license. You get no chip design. All you get is the instruction set architecture but you have to design the chip yourself. That's what Apple has been doing.
I know that I have a general bias against Apple, but it has generally annoyed me that Apple has decided to take a generic industry term like "$FOO Silicon" and turn it into a marketing title.
This highlights the ongoing problem of article titles needing to be eye-grabbing but usually inaccurate/misleading or more complex than a simple title allows for.
It's a title, it cannot be a paragraph long to be pedantically clear and unambiguous in what to expect.
"Website that lets you download a 1KB long executable that can be run on 7 _kernels_ and x86_64 architectures, but actually it's only been tested on Intel and will probably not work on Android even if technically it's still a Linux kernel, also Linux < 2.6 is unsupported so YMMV"
The binary code is for Intel processors. Silicon chips have a completely different instruction set.
For this same reason Android, iOS and RTos (for embeded systems) are not included among the targets.