The more I think about it, the more absurd I find this article. Open Access for research is appropriate because public funds paid for it. Open Source is the developer's choice because private funds paid for it (generally). The author seems to think that all software should be open source.
It's great that the Foundation is embracing Open Access research, but the author doesn't even praise them for their stance. Then, the author takes the un-natural leap to conflate Open Access research with Open Source software, apparently because they share the word Open. This is supposed to be a jab at Microsoft but it just backfires because it is off point and impertinent.
If the NSA is so competent at securing computers, why doesn't the NSA start by securing all the government computers? They don't even have to ask permission because the government already owns them. If the NSA can totally secure all the government computers, then I'll consider letting them handle my security.
There should be a niche for someone with good reputation to set up a paid research paper peer-reviewing service, affixing their stamp of approval to approved papers, and then just putting the approved papers in arXiv.
When ISPs want to say how many NSLs they have received each year, they can't because releasing this information would help the terrorists. When Dianne Feinstein wants to say how many times searches have been run in the last year, why go right ahead, Senator!