You raise an interesting point about licence compatibility with Github's T&Cs, although it's no longer relevant to this project because the licence has been cha

You raise an interesting point about licence compatibility with Github's T&Cs, although it's no longer relevant to this project because the licence has been changed to the GPL v3. To quote the relevant part: "By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories." However, there's no further mention of the word "fork" in the T&Cs. Simply forking a repository does not imply that a derivative work has been created. A fork is simply a verbatim copy. To create a derivative work, someone would need to both fork and then commit a change back to that fork. Of course, it's sort of implied through common (imprecise) use of the word that this is what it's intended to mean, but it's not actually what it says. While I'm not a lawyer, I believe that a more precisely-worded licence in the repository would take precedence over the ambiguously worded T&Cs. However, Github could at any time clarify the T&Cs to more clearly state that forking does imply creation of derivatives. And as with most online services, if the terms do get changed, "Continued use of the Service after any such changes shall constitute your consent to such changes."