We comment on the contents, not just the title of the article.
Frankly, "contents" substituting Java for JVM are pretty worthless. Notwithstanding, the article seems to be either confused about what it wants to fork, or it does indeed want to fork Java in addition to the JVM.
Either way, not a stellar effort.
The article mentioned OpenJDK, which contains JVM, but overall I agree that I wouldn't this call to action particularly inspiring.