No, it's not right. The GPL cannot "infect" Windows, so it's actually allowed (although I suppose what MS is saying is that if you think your license can infect Windows then it's not allowed, so it all depends on your interpretation).
The article does not make any sense, really. Especially this line:
>“If your app includes FOSS, it must not cause any non-FOSS Microsoft software to become subject to the terms of any FOSS license.” Although Microsoft didn't name it, it's talking about GPL.
Why would a GPL'ed app cause a non-FOSS software made by MS to become subject to the GPL? Does the app using the WinRT API cause the API to go under GPL?
Distributing VLC(even if by MS) does not cause the Win32 API used heavily by VLC to go under the GPL.
Distributing VLC(even if by MS) does not cause the Win32 API used heavily by VLC to go under the GPL.
There's an explicit exclusion in the GPL to allow linking against non-GPL "System Libraries", which does not include every closed-source library Microsoft has ever released. Even without the clause in question I doubt you'd ever be able to get a court to declare that Microsoft had to release the source to one of their non-Windows products because you tricked them into distributing a GPL application linked against it, but I can't really blame lawyers for being cautious in an untested area.