It's more complex than that. A lot of code on github (albeit not mine) is uploaded without the original party's agreement. Richard Stallman doesn't use github,

It's more complex than that. A lot of code on github (albeit not mine) is uploaded without the original party's agreement. Richard Stallman doesn't use github, but a lot of his GPL-licensed code has been incorporated into projects hosted there. If the terms-of-service allowed github to violate GPL licenses, I think most projects would need to migrate to gitlab. It'd be neigh-impossible for project authors to know that no GPL code in their project came from someone who did not have a side-license to github. Even if that argument fell apart somehow, their terms-of-service state (https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...): This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program. github is now selling My Content. To add insult to injury, they're trying to sell it back to me!