About a year ago, our company hired a development company to build a mobile app we had been longing to do, but never got the time to develop.
With previous bad luck with outsourcing, we got it on writing that they would keep all development inhouse, and they introduced us to the programmers that were to handle the task.
Things started out well, but suddently around 4 months later, we felt a huge drop in quality, chaotic communication with the development company and a huge rise in activity from polish and ukranian user on our development server.
We later found out via reddit that the developers assigned to our project had been fired, and we were not being told who took the project since.
Long story short, we are dragging them to court, since not only does it seem clear that they choose to outsource the project, they are now 4 months overdue from the deadline.
In this, we demand to get access to the GitHub repository, since it would clearly show in the history how the source code have been handled, and by who.
In conclusion, they state that: "No developer would ever give the client access to their GitHub history."
It is this statement, that I would like to run past you, and ask if you agree with. It's our strong conviction that it doesn't make sense, but to be sure, we'd like to hear you programmers out.
In our contract, it's stated that all material created related to this project is owned by us, but they claim that GitHub information is not related.
As a note, we're not asking for legal help from you, nor anything where you will be enrolled in our case. We are simply testing the statement, and listening to if there is any reason a client should not be allowed to look into the Git repository on request. (We do have access to source code, but not to the repository.)