Very interesting you find the contract and non-diclosure agredements interesting but those are not part of the article part disputed. I just object to the non-sublicensable related claim that you did add to the article and which are big fat lies by Pamela Jones who should be well aware that non-sublicenseable licenses are common the open standards world. 
And just to remind you it is normal for any licensing agreement ot have a non disclosreagrement in it a you do not want things like the licesing price and other deal specifics to be out in the open. I suggest you change the article to remove the non-sublicensable bullshitt claims by the well known anti-MS blog. 86.83.239.142