You specifically said that GitHub does not participate in the open source community and I think I've amply demonstrated that you're incorrect. If you'd like to continue to argue the point, I'd appreciate some facts.
It's similar to Microsoft hiring a bunch of Linux developers to continue developing. Yeah, this is good for marketing checkboxes of 'supporting the open source community', but from the perspective of a developer in that community, it's worthless.
What would be nice is if they hired new developers to work on git so the community actually grows and gets something.
They are paying people who would otherwise work on Git in their spare time to work on it full time. That is a net win for everyone who uses git.
I'm going to give up at this point and just accept the fact that you're going to spin it such that any commercial entity that uses open source and doesn't open source their core product is a parasite. I think you're wrong, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
You're not entitled to your own facts, though.
These aren't my own facts. This is based on what I've seen with open source contributors for a long time. Rather than companies contributing code or their own engineers, they just hire an existing contributor to keep doing what they do. I'm not arguing that this is bad, I'm saying that they should be put on a pedestal for essentially throwing money at something that they depend on anyway.
I see I've struck a nerve with github fans, but be honest with yourself. Do we say oracle is a great open source contributor because they have java language devs?