That's not accurate. GitHub is still getting lots of data from people without accounts, and providing open access helps them get more users in general.
If we have to do a restaurant analogy, it's like going to a restaurant (buffet?), opting out of premium, and still wanting access to a particular food item. It's not automatically ridiculous.
The OP is literally standing outside the restaurant looking through the window and complaining about not being allowed to eat for free.
> GitHub is still getting lots of data from people without accounts
This doesn't matter. If you want code search, you must log into a free account. Why is this controversial? Github isn't a charity - they don't exist to benefit freeloaders that won't even create a free account. Life doesn't need to be this hard folks...
you two both have missed the obvious that recently it was deemed legal to scrape public sights, and GH has all the code, and other code based AI tools need training.
The parent complaining about creating a free account can just keep complaining, or create one, I don’t care. But this nonsense about cost for search is not the issue.
It's like going to a museum that houses all the world's great treasures because it's funded by billionaires and they outbid all the smaller, shabbier publically-owned museums that _could_ be housing them in their own countries.
The treasures belong to humanity, not the museum, but they get the honour of hosting them, and that glory reflects on their reputation (which they use to sell commercial artifact-hosting services).
Entry is completely free, and for 16 years they gave you a map as you entered. But now some marketing genius has decided you don't get a map unless you give them your name and address and join their "friends of the museum" marketing programme.
These are not good signs for someone who wants to be custodian of the world's great treasures. I would argue it would be better for the world if the treasures were housed in local museums instead.
