[mlindner]

> Or at the very least users should be able to turn off forking ability in the repo settings.

This is absurd. You don't have to use the "fork" button to copy a repository. It's as simple as cloning it and pushing it. Such a restriction servers no purpose at all.

[swsieber]

There _is_ a difference between forking and cloning. Forking is always allowed by the github license:

> other GitHub users have the right to view and fork your repository _within the GitHub site_

^^ That's from the github website. Note that they only have permission to fork from within the website.

So such a restriction serves as a legal barrier - it leaves no legal way to copy the code.

[craftinator]

GitHub doesn't have the ability to choose what is legal. Or a better way to put it, the law does not follow GitHub's Terms of Use. You can violate them all day long and have no legal repercussions. The most important thing about people putting software in open report is that demonstrates their intention to make their software available to the public, which makes a big difference in a court of law.

[mlindner]

The github license is irrelevant here because they don't own the code. So there's no point in even mentioning that.

[intertextuality]

Obviously such an implementation would disable cloning as well.

[soulofmischief]

Then make a private repo. Hosting a public repo that a company would have to pay a mechanical turk to scrape every single file from manually by viewing the RAW data is just obtuse.

If you want it open source, understand what that means before complaining about it. Otherwise don't release your software on an open source platform.

[tlrobinson]

Why bother putting it on GitHub then? I expect to be able to git clone anything I find on GitHub. It's on you to determine how you can legally use the code.

[jcims]

GitHub would obviously also have to make the repo private as well, and then get into the business of interpreting and potentially defending the compatibility of their service against various licenses before making it public. That's unsustainable.

[ajhurliman]

The onus is on the end user to make it private.

[nailer]

Just thinking aloud, but GitHub could warn, when setting up new projects that don't have an OSS license, that the user may wish to make the repo private.

[HenryBemis]

I have a small iOS app, not too big, a few thousand lines.

My idea was to use Github, but then I didn't want to go through the cost/effort, and I am using my own version system, AWAY from everyone. The only way for someone to get my code is: a) laptop gets hacked b) laptop gets stolen (disk is encrypted), c) backup gets stolen (carbonite is encrypted) d) Apple gets hacked.

Git should not bother people with a bunch of different alerts (imho). A COMPANY (apologies for the caps) that has been working on code for "a few years" and doesn't do the MINIMUM to protect their Intellectual Property (IP)... well that is suicide.

Don't they pay someone with GRC/Audit/Security skills to put some sense into them????