It makes sense to me. Microsoft has long fought against open source licensing, even going as far as to call it a "cancer".
They may have, over the past decade, embraced a lot of open source software out of necessity, but their stance on licensing hasn't changed.
Creating an epidemic of hard-to-prove GPL violations could be a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy to try to invalidate the GPL requirements by making them appear unenforceable. Whatever cost Microsoft would incur defending customers could pay for itself if Microsoft manages to legally invalidate the parts of GPL licensing that prevent their corporate exploitation.
Using a bleeding-edge technology like generative AI is a great way to attack the GPL in court, given the risk that our court system isn't likely to be tech savvy enough not to be manipulated by Microsoft's claims against the GPL as it relates to casual infringement that they are enabling.
They may have, over the past decade, embraced a lot of open source software out of necessity, but their stance on licensing hasn't changed.
Creating an epidemic of hard-to-prove GPL violations could be a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy to try to invalidate the GPL requirements by making them appear unenforceable. Whatever cost Microsoft would incur defending customers could pay for itself if Microsoft manages to legally invalidate the parts of GPL licensing that prevent their corporate exploitation.
Using a bleeding-edge technology like generative AI is a great way to attack the GPL in court, given the risk that our court system isn't likely to be tech savvy enough not to be manipulated by Microsoft's claims against the GPL as it relates to casual infringement that they are enabling.