Github has every right to do that (subject to the term of their user service agreements and applicable local laws, etc., of course).
It'd also cause the utter destruction of their current business model. They do NOT do this, because they recognise it is utterly incompatible with their goal of being a trusted hub for open source collaboration, which in turn is a key step in their larger strategy of achieving fat profits and market dominance.
> GitHub is a for-profit company
Yes, and they want to make a profit, so they don't do dumb stuff that, to pick a random example, a rich guy funding a small volunteer organisation as a hobby might feel comfortable doing.
At this point open source is not a major part of their business model. Open source doesn't make you money. Enterprise makes you money. And developers don't make purchasing choices at enterprise, there is an entire department for that.
Now if you want to put it into context, if 75% of the git repos redirected you to GitLab, they would make that choice. This isn't 1 or 20 channels, if it wasn't they wouldn't be doing it would they? So lets be serious if this was happening on the percentage scales it is happening with freenode -> libre. GitHub 100% would do it.
It'd also cause the utter destruction of their current business model. They do NOT do this, because they recognise it is utterly incompatible with their goal of being a trusted hub for open source collaboration, which in turn is a key step in their larger strategy of achieving fat profits and market dominance.
> GitHub is a for-profit company
Yes, and they want to make a profit, so they don't do dumb stuff that, to pick a random example, a rich guy funding a small volunteer organisation as a hobby might feel comfortable doing.