From the Article
"Well, it seems to me that the organization is rather enthusiastically headed toward accepting a license that isn't freedom respecting" -- Bruce Perens.
You were already doing that when you accepted the Apache licence. Someone (*cough* Google *cough*) can write a program, release it in compiled, binary form only under the Apache licence, and still be entirely compliant with the licence. They can even call it Open Source and plaster the OSI logo all over their advertisements, without ever actually distributing a single byte of Source Code. The licence gives end users theoretical permissions n in respect of the Source Code, but there is nothing that obliges anyone to supply the Source Code in practice. Which rather makes a mockery of the whole thing.