Wow no, that analysis is just top to bottom full of errors.
"Papers by themselves aren’t licensed". Not true. Post Berne convention, any copyrightable work is copyrighted by default, and you cannot reproduce it without a license of some kind. (excepting some special cases like works of the US Federal government) Papers often do specify licensing (unless they're all-rights-reserved: in which case you're just getting no license), specifying licensing is a universal requirement in academic publication (though sometimes you're not given a choice, you're just forced to assign copyright to the publisher or likewise).
"Open source documentation is also not copyrighted if it is given away in an open source license." All licensed open source works are copyrighted. The license permits you to do all sorts of stuff (if its an open source license), but it's still copyrighted and some rights are usually reserved (for example, even the most permissive licenses don't generally allow you to falsify attribution or strip licensing info).
"If the author or other owner claims ownership and registers it or uses (c), date and the copyright holder’s name at publication then it’s usually considered copyrighted." post berne convention no copyright notice or registration is required for a work to be copyrighted. It's considered a polite practice, but is legally unimportant now.
In the US you need to register to sue in court, but that doesn't need to be done proactively in advance.
"the gift can’t be taken back and claimed as a copyright." The work is still copyrighted, so this sentence is just incoherent. The licenses isn't revocable.
"If a copyright holder allows publication of a work by other sources and does not challenge this, the holder weakens its claim.", unlike trademark there is no duty to enforce in copyright. Though there may be equitable defences in some situations (see mention in the letter) they are generally fairly narrow, and don't implicitly create a duty to enforce.
Providing actually false information doesn't help anyone, even if it's falsehoods used to cheer along a good cause.
Edit: After writing this, I found out that my partner, who is an attorney on the board of the Free Software foundation and is one of the authors of the CC-4.0 licenses independantly
attempted to correct many of these and other errors earlier today and was just blown off.
If he had that much he'd be able to finance a 51% attack or mine bitcoin himself. He'd be able to set up his own exchange for shitcoins, but what coins would he include there if he'd exclude Bitcoin and his sister coin (BCH)? 
