Assuming Github's ToS applied here, it's unlikely that the project owners would have succeeded in keeping the content as is on github by arguing for it. This is

Assuming Github's ToS applied here, it's unlikely that the project owners would have succeeded in keeping the content as is on github by arguing for it. This is regardless of the legitimacy of the content. Being on Github isn't critical for every project, and we need more projects that have their primary location on Bitbucket, Gitlab, etc. instead, in order to break the Github monopoly by making it normal that it's fine to use a different site for a project. It cannot be healthy to have all our eggs in one basket (Github), regardless of how featureful and nice Github is, especially so given the availability of viable options. To that end, we should not complain when a project, say, evil-mode is on bitbucket, and similarly not ask a project to open shop on github. I mean, if we don't work towards a fully distributed project model ala fossil-scm (via things like git-appraise), we should at least use alternatives when we can, and not strengthen Github's monopoly.