Is this really true, or is it just something people have repeated enough times like 'nuclear Ghandi'?

I mainly ask because Microsoft has another product called Linux Integration Services: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=551...

As a lawyer trained in trademark law, I've never heard this. Do you have any references?

What if you just apply for a free sublicense and you get approved and your massive cadre of attorneys aren't fighting each other over 5 letters?

Apparently some HN people think that MS is so sleazy that they will just go "GPL yoink" and start running/advertising/supporting Linux without notice or consent the benevolent dictator. That's projection.

Use of the English language can often lead to ambiguity.

In the case of "Windows subsystem for Linux", it can be reasonably read that "for Linux" means that the functionality applies to Linux, i.e., to provide it with a subsystem that gives it Windows functionality.

Similarly, in the case of "Linux subsystem for Windows", it can be reasonably read that "for Windows" means that the functionality applies to Windows, i.e., to provide it with a subsystem that gives it Linux functionality.

For a recursive acronym, I prefer LiNT, officially LiNT is NT, and unofficially, either Linux in NT or Linux is Not There, with the official and second unofficial definitions reflecting the WSL 1 architecture where WSL, like Win32, is a subsystem layered on top of the NT kernel, and doesn't rely on any Linux kernel code.