Carthage must be destroyed!
To some extent this relates to the regime change that happened after Ballmer left. Microsoft previously shunned open source and the Linux ecosystem. Now they are much more open to it, and are shifting to Linux for (e.g.) their GPU computing. Apparently they are also rewriting a lot of the CNTK code to work better with Linux. (Technically, C++ should work well with both Windows and Linux, but with things like threads there can be differences in the way you do things).
They likely shifted this from the standard MSR license (which only permits research use) to the MIT license mostly in order to increase adoption. Even many academic users do not like research-only licenses because if you become dependent on that type of software it closes the door to later commercialization and some types of collaboration with industry. I myself am an example of this-- previously I did not consider using CNTK because of the license. (In the meantime I have built my own toolkit with similar capabilities, and will likely stick with it now because I understand it).
The group wanted to convert to a more open license for a while but were probably waiting on management and lawyers. They are probably upset that it didn't happen sooner, because in the meantime Google released TensorFlow, which will have taken away a lot of the potential market.
It's important to note that for people who are working, getting $800 from their job vs. $800 from the state are not equivalent at all, because the $800 from the state requires higher taxation, and taxation disincentivizes economic activity. C.f. the "dead hand of the government".
I'll pay in blood.. but not my own.
This happened to me when I tried to update the Wikipedia page about the prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case with a reference to a New Yorker article about some of his previous misdeeds.
Part of the issue is that all university departments have a mix of people, some of whom have skills that are useful in industry and the real world, and some of whom don't, and of course their salaries won't reflect that, they will reflect mostly seniority. So when companies hire away those who are actually doing useful stuff, all that remains is those with outdated skills or those with a very academic approach (e.g. people who are better at writing papers than code). That has a bad effect because it's the ones that are hired away that would have been teaching students the most marketable skills.
I do have first-hand experience of this issues (I'm a research professor at a top-ranked university).
It may be true, on the margin, that H1B workers depress wages for US workers in similar occupations in the short term, but they also help to grow the US economy overall, especially the tech economy, and almost certainly improve living standards for Americans not in that very limited pool. (And they probably have very little effect in the long term, on the US market for tech talent, as they are growing the market by making it more favorable for capital).