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