Here I give a more detailed analysis of my points, if what I explained wasn't enough.
1) About OIN: quoting from the article: "And I've explained in detail that the OIN doesn't truly protect all of FOSS but only an arbitrarily defined list of program files."
Why doesn't OIN protect all FOSS? They protect "The Linux System", and Dalvik shouldn't be there.
IMHO it only makes sense to protect all FOSS; he explains in more detail various intermediate scenarios at the end of .
Also, he is not making a point _there_, but mostly linking to a huge number of points he made earlier. Among the other points, he also explains that what you suggest wouldn't work because the group can later arbitrarily restrict the list of protected software ; then he goes on with suggestions.
Two articles are linked, which explain various criticism in greater detail; I just skimmed them, but they do explain better. See  and .
2) About fair and reasonable licensing terms, I didn't quote the article because of that point (point 2), which is not it's main point, I referred to point 4. While I slightly disagree with him, you're definitely unfair.
And my slight disagreement is about how much a corporation should be less evil than allowed by laws. He says something like "we shouldn't be too optimistic", I think "I would hope for more". That's it. If it weren't for _software_ patents, the FRAND licensing would be probably fine.
However, he's just saying that while patents are bad, aggressive patent trolls are worse - and Oracle's worse than Microsoft here. He's not advocating Microsoft; he also explains that he used to fear Microsoft far more.
"If companies only go to court because someone doesn't accept a reasonable license deal, then even I as an opponent of software patents can see the commercial logic".
Then, you can look at  for an answer to your doubts, if you care.