@ YoureMissingSomething:

Nope. “Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright”

Not only is it NOT a source redistribution, but the copyright notice is still in tact. This means Microsoft is actually going above and beyond the BSD license.

According to the BSD license (which Microsoft agreed to when using the code):

* Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

That means Microsoft was required to leave the copyright intact. Sure, I get the point about them being against the GPL but loving BSD, but they didn’t just blatantly leave the copyright statement in because they’re inept code stealers. They were just obeying the license restrictions which is perfectly reasonable.

Does not surprise me in the least.
At least be thorough and have pride in your work.