I'd still call it a leak, since GitHub is closed-source. Then again, this raises an important point: with the source code so easily acquired, why isn't it open-source?
Most likely support. GH probably doesn’t want to support an open source version (triaging issues, reviewing 3rd party pull requests, having an open roadmap). Likewise it would probably be bad PR if they just dumped the code base and were really slow (or didn’t) respond to bug reports.
Being open source requires a lot more than just the source code being available.
Well, you don't necessarily have to do those things. See for instance Apple's XNU Kernel. :)
Well, "maximum engineering secrecy" would be not releasing the source code to XNU. Apple is very secretive overall, to be sure, but not in this one respect.
I'm glad that XNU's source code is available—it lets you do a number of neat things. I wish more was available, but I'll take what we can get.
By extension, I don't support the idea that there's no point in releasing source code if you can't also release documentation and review outside pull requests. Making a tool available to the public is always better than hoarding information. All the other stuff is even better, but code is code.
---
All of that said, I recognize that for Github specifically, releasing code and not engaging with it might be a bad look, because their product is a code sharing platform. I don't think that applies to most companies, though.
The GitHub way of working has only been around since GitHub launched. Accordingly, the free software and open source communities that predate GitHub had their own ways of working before GitHub came along. Despite the widespread perception that GitHub makes doing open source easy, it comprises a set of practices that can be and are frequently more taxing than the alternatives. If GitHub is all you know, though, or you've forgotten, or you've just not noticed and never measured it, then it's easy to think that the GutHub way embodies the essentials of development in the open, even though its workflows are pretty bloated.
I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic or anything. Just look at how maintainers are treated for a week and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Just because something is open source, does not mean you have to engage with the "community". Slapping GPL on some code on a git repo somewhere, with a big sign saying if you don't like it you have the right to fork, so please fork off, is also open source, and a totally ok thing to do if you don't want to develop a community [Open source maintainers don't owe the world anything beyond what they freely want to give it]
why does anything needs to be open source in the first place?
Open-sourcing something should add value. Github doesn't see any value in doing so (and i would agree). It's not like github has any secret ingredient that makes github source special - gitlab has replicated most of github's functionality, and so has many open hosting platforms.
The value of github is mindshare, rather than anything code wise.
Not help you learn.
Not advocating FOSS approach for anything, and I'm not strictly speaking of GH in that context, but generally, malicious code loves being hidden into closed source software since it's the best effective way to keep it hard to control and correct. When privacy, security, safety, accountability become important, the FOSS approach might solve a problems or two. Of course the downside is that everyone can look at it, so building a billions worth business out of a fork + 10 line changes + renaming of a FOSS project cannot work without violating the license by keeping it closed.
I'm also genuinely curious how many people actively review all the code they actually run. I doubt anybody but the very largest tech companies and high-end government would actually be able to afford and resources such a feat, and even then they would have DMZ-type areas to detonate unaudited software.
- If it is so easy to shoplift, why don't stores just give out everything for free?
It's not that people do not pick locks because locks are so secure. It's because lock is polite way to say "do not enter here" and almost everyone respects that. If someone wants not to respect it, there are a multitude of YouTube channels showing how trivially easy it is to bypass it. But then, the legal aspect kicks in and punishments follow.
The same with stealing. It is trivially easy to steal. Moral code stops most people. Legal code punishes the rest.
Anything in our world can be "so easily acquired" if one does not care about laws and ethics. In that sense, the question posed in the original comment seems utterly bizarre to me. If anything that could be easily acquired were to be released for free, almost everything in the world should be released for free.
I generally like to open-source all my work. I'm working on a closed-source app, right now, but I think that it should be made open-source, once the embargo has passed. The backend is already open-source, as is the SDK.
I like to use the MIT license, which says that you can use the code how you like, but don't come whining to me, if you pooch it.
But I will, sometimes use a license that says "Here's the code for you to look at. It's not authorized for copying."
I think that it's a good idea to have it available. I seriously doubt there's anything in my stuff that is so proprietary that I'm afraid it will get ripped off. I do the same stuff everyone else does; maybe not as cleverly.
I just feel that it's good to show folks what's under the hood, if at all possible.
It depends. Figuring out how to design a large system still takes an appreciable amount of time even if you only end up gluing a bunch of other stuff together at the end of the day. And chances are you have something original in there somewhere. If the market is particularly cutthroat it might be a bad idea to risk giving your competitors even a slight edge.
I do appreciate the sentiment of proprietary source available projects though!