I'd say this is more about positioning themselves as "someone who cares about open source" more than anything else.
Their main product is proprietary, and they have a looong history of vendor lock-in and anti-competitiveness (including: Extend, Embrace, Extinguish). Giving out these grants lets them present themselves as someone who cares and funds open source, even if their core business stands strongly against it.
Perhaps people in tech mostly now GitHub's and MicroSoft's reputation. But if says "we love open source and even give out grants", its easy to understand why legislators would believe that both parts of the statement to be true.
Their main product is proprietary, and they have a looong history of vendor lock-in and anti-competitiveness (including: Extend, Embrace, Extinguish). Giving out these grants lets them present themselves as someone who cares and funds open source, even if their core business stands strongly against it.
Perhaps people in tech mostly now GitHub's and MicroSoft's reputation. But if says "we love open source and even give out grants", its easy to understand why legislators would believe that both parts of the statement to be true.