Yeah, the economic situation of npm, Inc. is worrisome (not acutely to the best of my knowledge, but structurally so). What they do is try to sell npm enterpris

Yeah, the economic situation of npm, Inc. is worrisome (not acutely to the best of my knowledge, but structurally so). What they do is try to sell npm enterprise with private, company-internal repos, but why don't they attempt a business model where they mediate F/OSS (or similar licensed code) to commercial users, handing out most of the money to the developers, and keep something for themselves? If they can't do it, github (MS) might be (right now, though, there's only github marketplace for github.com, and GH sponsors), or github might actually buy them. If they don't attempt to go into other markets, npm, Inc. is suspectible to turn to the dark side by eg. limiting access to the registry, inject ads (like SourceForge were doing), flood the registry with dubious packages and sell security screening to enterprises, or whatever. Not saying they will! But, pessimistically, these are the incentives another group of investors might have when making the current owners an offer for npm, Inc.'s assets. Couple notes regarding TFA: - Author rightly points out to look at a company's incentive; what are their incentives to release a new package manager? - "Javascript commons" is a bad term; node.js' API is based on CommonJS [1], and these two are too close; besides, "JavaScript" is trademarked [1]: http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/CommonJS http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/CommonJS