The GNU project did an evaluation of various code repository services, and GitHub has problems other than the server code being proprietary[1].
The problem is that GitHub's client code is also proprietary (namely their site does not function when proprietary JavaScript is blocked), which makes it a user freedom issue.
However, their server code being non-free is additionally problematic because it would mean that GNU was recommending the usage of a proprietary service when there are free software alternatives. Which goes against the mission of GNU.
> If a software developer doesn't want to pay for GitHub, then what on earth deserves to be paid for.
When I use the word "free" I am referring to software freedom, not price. Please re-read my previous comment with that context in mind.
The problem is that GitHub's client code is also proprietary (namely their site does not function when proprietary JavaScript is blocked), which makes it a user freedom issue.
However, their server code being non-free is additionally problematic because it would mean that GNU was recommending the usage of a proprietary service when there are free software alternatives. Which goes against the mission of GNU.
> If a software developer doesn't want to pay for GitHub, then what on earth deserves to be paid for.
When I use the word "free" I am referring to software freedom, not price. Please re-read my previous comment with that context in mind.
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.en.htm...