Ah, but again you're assuming retroactive application. Were they to do that, I'd petition my congressman to place open bounties on the BSA. I'd likely get the requisite number of signatures, too, if I phrased the byline as "Preventative Measures to Stem the Spread of a Toxilogically Biohazardous Viral Body" or something on that order. No, IF Microsoft were to get the Linux kernel and "switch" it to their End User Legal Annulment, and actually NOT be total bastards by violating the original licence in favour of their new one, progress would continue to be made on the prior edition of the kernel. This is the benefit of a "forked" model. However this is all merely rhetoric, as letting Microsoft play with the Linux kernel is like letting a five-year-old play with nuclear weaponry. It's really cool for the half a second before they screw it up so badly that it kills them and vaporises the entire block. 
It still violates the licence.
Ahem...
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
---
The GPL.
Microsoft would require permission from '
a fuckload of developers' to do this. Otherwise it would be illegal. The only people who can change the licence are the original developers (all of them), if one does not like the terms of the new licence then they have the power to have their code removed from the new licenced program.
