3 ms·

Some say that it was published not by Nat, anyone could do that.[0,1] But, that fact does not explain where original gh source was taken from (probably, it may

Some say that it was published not by Nat, anyone could do that.[0,1] But, that fact does not explain where original gh source was taken from (probably, it may be gh's employer).[2] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24976138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24976138 [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/jnzxmd/someone_pushed_github_source_code_to_their_dmca/gb4smps/ https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/jnzxmd/someone... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24991429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24991429

app4soft 6y ago
UPD: Nat Friedman[0] just explained[1] on HN: > Hi folks, I'm the CEO of GitHub. > GitHub hasn't been hacked. We accidentally shipped an un-stripped/obfuscated tarball of our GitHub Enterprise Server source code to some customers a couple of months ago. It shares code with github.com. > In summary: everything is fine, situation normal, the lark is on the wing, the snail is on the thorn, and all's right with the world. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=natfriedman https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=natfriedman [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24995121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24995121