A nuance here to tease out is that there are alternatives to github with low barriers of entry, unlike data analytic capabilities like google or FB.
At worst, ICE can mail around zip archives as source control like the old days. It doesn’t give them new capabilities like some signal processing service.
Basically, the devs here don’t have a compelling case - quit and start their own scm hub and pick their own customers. If they can achieve a business as such, then props.
If GitHub was the exclusive provider of some important service - like a utility - I would feel strongly that they should continue to offer the service despite political differences (even if not strictly classified as a utility).
On the other hand, since there are plenty of alternatives, there's no huge & lasting damage that could result from Github choosing not to have a particular customer - and as such they should have more freedom to deny any particular customer. As such, I think it's should be fine, ethically speaking, to discontinue a professional relationship with ICE should Github management decide that continuing a relationship with ICE is counter to their values or something, in which case the devs do have a case they can try to make (that ICE is counter to their values).
At worst, ICE can mail around zip archives as source control like the old days. It doesn’t give them new capabilities like some signal processing service.
Basically, the devs here don’t have a compelling case - quit and start their own scm hub and pick their own customers. If they can achieve a business as such, then props.