It appears that the EFF licenses its content under the Creative Commons Attribution License[0][1], which would make it acceptable to redistribute original content which is not already under a more restrictive license, if attribution is given, which the original site does not appear to have done. They also altered the content to remove the final paragraph, which would require attribution as well.

The EFF would be undermining their own credibility (not to mention that of free/open source licenses) if they were aware of this and choose to ignore it. I'd bet no one bothered reporting it, though.

[0]https://www.eff.org/copyright

[1]https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/