To the point of GH being a business: If they are not making enough money through enterprise customers to make it profitable, would you rather be happy if they remove the free-for-open-source benefit, and start charging you for hosting your code? Don't think so. I actually think that would kill the business...
Now, what other company would be willing to pick up the tab? Oracle? FB? Amazon? IBM?
Not a chance you would get the system running as originally was.
Yes, I have based this post on the premise that they were not making money, but the fact that they spent 1 year looking for a CEO makes me doubt about their financials.
Another point I saw in the comments that resonated was: if the code is open anyways, what will you lose? privacy?
To the point of GH being a business: If they are not making enough money through enterprise customers to make it profitable, would you rather be happy if they remove the free-for-open-source benefit, and start charging you for hosting your code? Don't think so. I actually think that would kill the business...
Now, what other company would be willing to pick up the tab? Oracle? FB? Amazon? IBM?
Not a chance you would get the system running as originally was.
Yes, I have based this post on the premise that they were not making money, but the fact that they spent 1 year looking for a CEO makes me doubt about their financials.
Another point I saw in the comments that resonated was: if the code is open anyways, what will you lose? privacy?
This was really more about the CDN aspect for me of GitHub releases :)