I think this is mostly good news.   I would have been appalled if instead of MS it had been Apple (a bunch who only have a company because of MS's generosity a long time ago)  or Oracle (a bunch who would have you paying ridiculous amounts through github license reviews) but MS is a company that has embraced open source and mostly runs clean tidy and fair licensing, including vast quantities of free stuff.

But I'm surprised by the statement from Github about MS's LinkedIn takeover.  That takeover was regarded by pretty well every LinkedIn user (whether using the free service or the paid for service) as a catastrophe with usability and features vastly reduced.  The timing suggests that it was the LinkedIn management rather than Microsoft who decided to reduce costs by reducing services, and perhaps without the MS takeover LinkedIn would have just ceased to exist, but the impression people mostly got was that the services were wrecked because MS was going to take over.  The thing there is that MS was taking over a broken service in a field in which it had, I believe, no experience at all, which is very different from the Github takeover - so I'm optimistic about his one.