I have a different reading of this. I think this is them doing the best they can within the limits set by microsoft's legal department. They cannot legally admit they looked at his code and copied the structure, because that opens them up to a copyright suit. In the blog post it seems they went as far as they could: admitting to being influenced by the ideas, without having actually copied any of the code.
If they really want to fix this, they need to pay AppGet's author some money, and get something in writing so they are legally protected from copyright suits. I assume they're negotiating this right now, and that once this deal is done there will be another blog post that is more genuine.
They really messed this up because it would have been cheap to get something in writing before releasing WinGet. Someone at microsoft legal dropped the ball.
If they really want to fix this, they need to pay AppGet's author some money, and get something in writing so they are legally protected from copyright suits. I assume they're negotiating this right now, and that once this deal is done there will be another blog post that is more genuine.
They really messed this up because it would have been cheap to get something in writing before releasing WinGet. Someone at microsoft legal dropped the ball.