I definitely agree he should have been credited more, and the communications strategy was cruel.

But he released his work, AppGet, under an Apache 2.0 license. Microsoft was free to copy it as long as they followed the terms of the license. That's one of the points of open source.

Microsoft also released their copy of it under the very open MIT license.

The article treats it like a crime, but this is essentially how it should work, right? One open-source project greatly advances the art, and another takes what was created and released freely, and runs with it.

If they literally copied code from AppGet, they may have an issue given that they didn't follow the Apache license terms precisely (at least, it doesn't look like it from a very brief glance at the WinGet repository -- Beigi's name doesn't appear to be in the Apache license notices). But that seems easily fixable.