Maybe what&#x27;s going on is they&#x27;re focusing their resources toward paid offerings for large businesses and away from small and FOSS projects.<p>The most valuable thing Github has is the enormous portfolio of FOSS projects and all the free eyeballs that come with it.  Yes, it&#x27;s not paid, but because its public offerings are so popular, most developers are familiar with it and that gives it a trusted inlet to basically every software organization in existence.  After all, in a non-dysfunctional organization, the guy who decides what products to buy to support their developers should give far more weight to what those developers want, than what is said by a vendor salesman whose job it is to convince them to buy a particular product.<p>Which means it&#x27;s a mistake to neglect their FOSS users -- it seems self-evident that the biggest, best, most cost-effective way for Github to sell its paid features is word-of-mouth from its free users.  It&#x27;s very hard for a competitor to replicate their enormous network effect, which is also what makes it so effective.  Their underwhelming response to the &quot;dear github&quot; letter suggests that their upper management is blind to this.  I think there&#x27;s a serious possibility that, in the next five to ten years, their position will be as marginalized as, say, Sourceforge is today -- long ago it was the &quot;gold standard&quot; in hosting services, but today it&#x27;s only used by barely-maintained projects who can&#x27;t even scrape together the resources needed to change their code hosting provider.