In the world of FLOSS...
if 'licensing' creates and protects 'freedom' to use and develop and to share that is to be applauded and supported.
If 'licensing' restricts freedom and places power in the hands of those who have money then it is just a backdoor to the same old story of monetisation and parasitism of the 'user'. 'Open source' is not by default the same as 'FLOSS', although the this often seems to be assumed - it all comes down to the licensing, and the devil, as they say, is there - in the detail, and in the actual practice and ability to enforce the license.
MS may well have decided to play straight in this area as they benefit from doing so, but as always it's actions that reveal the truth.
In another life I used to have to pay an annual fee for a music usage 'licence'. Fair enough, it helped composers earn a living. What was not so fair was the the publishing house's practice of taking songs/music that were out of copyright, altering them very slightly, and then claiming fees on the strength a new copyright that could not be avoided if the user was obliged to use the material - which we generally were.
Scummy behaviour which obeyed the letter of the law, but completely mocked the spirit of it.
In the end 'money-grubbers' are as money-grubbers do and MS have plenty of such people driving corporate behaviour. We shall see.