> There is no evidence in the fork that he is the copyright holder of the original code and it looks like Microsoft is.
Only because they removed the license and copyright. If they were willing to do that in 1 file, they are willing to do it in many. It's not the authors mistake in any way shape or form.
It seems that only portions are from the original, so it is possible that they made the fork by copying files as they were needed. In that case, there was no removal of the notice. It just never was copied since they were using the project as an organ donor. That is a problem when using a single LICENSE file. It would have been handled had the original files had headers stating the license and copyright.
Only because they removed the license and copyright. If they were willing to do that in 1 file, they are willing to do it in many. It's not the authors mistake in any way shape or form.