> The non-GNU ELPA is supposed to be a repository for packages which are GPL
> compliant and it is a reasonable expectation that those who make their
> packages GPL compliant do so because they support the philosophical goals
> of the FSF.
The overwhelming majority of ELisp packages out there are hosted on
Github (that also applies to many GNU ELPA packages, many of them are
developed by long time contributors to Emacs), so I think the evidence
shows the above expectation doesn't hold at all.
Maybe. However, it could also be a combination of the fact github was the first free git hosting environment and is the better known one. Just because it is this way now doesn't mean it has to be. If the GNU/FSF doesn't take a clear position on this and do something to discourage the use of hosting environments that force the use of proprietary software, this will not change and eventually all we will have are the proprietary solutions. It may not have been the right decision to allow code which has assigned copyright to the FSF to remain on Github. However, as non-GNU ELPA is just getting started, now would be a good time to try and change things.
I'm also not convinced about arguments suggesting too much inertia or too much hassle in moving to a new hosting platform. Lots of packages which use to be hosted on sourceforge have moved to Github. There are few technical barriers to moving git repositories to a new hosting platform. However, there has to be some incentive to do so. It also seems inconsistent to have so many packages, both GNU ELPA and non-GNU ELPA packages hosted on a platform which is so far from being acceptable from a FSF philosophical perspective. Makes it feel like the FSF fails to eat their own dog food.