IAAL. My reading of the article and the terms of service strongly suggest that the author of this article is not well informed on the subject.

For example, my informal and cursory analysis of the article:

> Section D.7 requires the person uploading content to waive any and all attribution rights.

It does not. The Github license requires a waiver of the requirement of attribution insofar as such waiver is needed for Github to do what it already does e.g. as the license indicates, provide search results without attribution.

Further, only Github has been given this waiver. Anyone else is still held to any requirement of attribution.

> section D.5 requires ... the right to “reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality”, with no further restructions attached; this is a killer for, I believe, any and all licences falling into the “copyleft” category

While D.5 does permit performing, using, and displaying of a work, it permits reproducing on GitHub only. Any copying from GitHub not granted by way of another license would be a violation of the author's copyright.

Use, performance, or displaying in the absence of a right to reproduce strikes me as a rather narrow set of rights.

I stand to be corrected, but I see nothing sinister, nefarious, or unwarranted by GitHub.

YMMV. If you need legal advice, retain a lawyer.