"Embrace, extend, and extinguish" (EEE) has always been the plan.

I fully believe the EEE problem still exists at Microsoft but fail to see how this feature is a part of that. This has been something OSS maintainers have asked for for ages.

Do you have specific arguments against it?

"sponsor-only repositories, that is, private repositories that only sponsors will get access to" is this open source? Will this help open source? I don't believe so. This fragments the open source community, and creates a paywall for innovation. Further it restricts the ability to enforce open source licensing. Where is the protection for code behind a paywall and which uses copyleft source.

Eh? There have been private repositories for ages. I don't see how licenses have anything to do with it either. You don't need to have an FOSS license just to host on GitHub.

Also, this still doesn't address the EEE angle.

Embrace, join the open source community, and buy github. Extend, add exclusive features private repositories which do not notify copywrite holders when packages use copyleft software which mandates publishing source.

Extend, add repositories which profit from copyleft software which mandates publishing source, but github enables the thieves to hide and exploit the original developers work.

Extinguish, community now works with the thieves and contributes to parasitic repos instead of open source repositories.

Private repositories and paywall repositories are absolutely not open source.

Github must have independent auditors review private repositories and paywall repositories to prevent theft of opensource or be treated as part of the theft itself.

That's not what EEE was about and nobody is arguing that private repos are open source. I think you're intentionally ignoring my point...

If we make a derogatory name for it, will it go away?

Here's one: OnlyGits

> OnlyGits

a better name would be "A Snivelling Little Rat-Faced Git"