I agree the circumstances are very different, and obviously don't think there was any nefarious intentions. But the underlying fundamental issue - brand recogni

I agree the circumstances are very different, and obviously don't think there was any nefarious intentions. But the underlying fundamental issue - brand recognition and the value of having your work recognized under a name you control - is still the same. In this case, I think the author of this tool has the most to lose, because he is building brand equity for someone else. If next year his tool takes off and he is forced to rename, he has to start over. But let's assume this tool becomes so successful that he gets away with the "name hack", then it sets the wrong example for other aspiring toolmakers: "don't bother picking your own name, surf on on someone else's and if you succeed fast enough, you might get away with it". That is the same calculation which leads less scrupulous people like Comodo and OVH to "ask for forgiveness rather than permission". I think that is dangerous for innovation because it makes it less rewarding to try something new under your own name. Why bother if someone else will reap the rewards in the end?