I'm sorry, but I don't see it. > GitHub's encouragement of sloppy licensing, no licensing, or licensing under only a single version of the GPL, has done terrib

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. > GitHub's encouragement of sloppy licensing, no licensing, or licensing under only a single version of the GPL, has done terrible harm to our community. There's many projects out there that are meant to be open source, but the author never put a license on it, so it's, legally speaking, "all rights reserve" and you aren'y even allowed to use the software yourself. Github doesn't really encourage this; in fact, it even offers initializing a new repo with a license, but it still happens that project owners just don't > GitHub was so bad for free software, all along, that I could imagine Microsoft's making it less bad First of all, this is obviously just his opinion; I can't really attack or defend it like "good" or "bad" are some sort of mathematical constants. The fact is: github does serve as a platform for non-free software (heck, every single one of my projects is either MIT or public domain, which means it can be put into a closed-source project), so if your ultimate goal is for all software to be "free" in the FSF sense, then yes, github has caused much harm. > We should judge by what actually happens, not by prejudice. This statement is so obviously correct, there's just no way you could interpret it in any unreasonable way.