> The Github license requires a waiver of the requirement of attribution insofar as such waiver is needed for Github to do what it already does e.g. as the license indicates, provide search results without attribution.
The whole problem is that I, as an uploader of code that I did not write, do not have the authority to make that waiver.
Not necessarily. If the license allows you to redistribute the code, you're just redistributing it to GitHub, and you're OK as far as the software license goes.
If GitHub then does things with that code that the license doesn't allow, it was GitHub that is doing something it's not allowed to - unless, as uploader, you've agreed to indemnify GitHub for this sort of thing.
It may be the case that what the license permits (combined with fair use law) is sufficient to allow what GitHub actually, currently does with the code, but not everything their TOS claims the right to do.
In particular, "store and display your Content [..] as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service" is rather broad given that the functionality included in the "Service" (defined as "the applications, software, products, and services provided by GitHub") can change at any time, without notice.
Wrong. My OSS project has over 15 years of history, uploaded to GitHub after migration from SF.net. It has third party dependencies that I use under their licenses - which often do require attribution.
The whole problem is that I, as an uploader of code that I did not write, do not have the authority to make that waiver.