8 ms·

Maybe they're still angry with him about leftpad.</joke> Yes, it really is the same guy: https://kodfabrik.com/journal/i-ve-just-liberated-my-modules https://k

Maybe they're still angry with him about leftpad.</joke> Yes, it really is the same guy: https://kodfabrik.com/journal/i-ve-just-liberated-my-modules https://kodfabrik.com/journal/i-ve-just-liberated-my-modules. And, joking aside it would be wise to bear in mind that we're reading only one side of the story here. As with leftpad, there's another side to this. With leftpad he told Kik, "fuck you" (https://medium.com/@mproberts/a-discussion-about-the-breaking-of-the-internet-3d4d2a83aa4d#.ld8o5zqz7 https://medium.com/@mproberts/a-discussion-about-the-breakin...), and then wrought global havoc on npm users. Now he's claiming the Chrome Extension Team "continuously troll developers", and is pulling down something he's created... again. I only have two data points, so the behaviour here is a coincidence rather than a pattern, but I will guarantee you whatever you think of Google there is more to this than meets the eye. I'm not without sympathy for the author, but neither am I about to uncritically take his side.

ivanhoe 6y ago
The perspective of the other side is not hard to guess here: support costs money, it's way easier and cheaper to automate it, and if it hurts a few people here and there no one really cares because there're millions of other users (and no much alternative anyway). We all know that Google's support sucks, even they know it very well, just they don't give a shit. Everyone's pissed about this for years - anyone who ever tried to debug adsense, gmail or youtube account getting blocked out of the blue, or android app being flagged for no reason has gone through pretty much the same process this guy describes. Internet is full of horror stories of this kind, it's very well documented. The only difference here is that most of us goes "c'est la vie" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, and we continue using their services because - well - everyone else does it, what else could we do... while this guy doesn't mind giving them the finger... which will, and of course he knows that, hurt him much more than Google - but that's a move to be respected imho...
acituan 6y ago
> I only have two data points, so the behaviour here is a coincidence rather than a pattern, but I will guarantee you whatever you think of Google there is more to this than meets the eye. You seem to want us to question the narrative based on the likability of the developer, but is it really relevant? Can you really imagine a data point that we don't know that will change the narrative of "solo developer getting steamrolled by corporate machinery"? Because that is what is happening in both cases. I want to be clear, this is not even about the solo developer actually being in the right, it is about the process or lack thereof that takes place to reach the conclusion. You might not like this particular guy, but I guarantee you a more likable guy would be/will be/is being equally strong-armed in these lopsided processes. Transparency, accountability and fairness would make all of us happy and not left guessing who might be right based on who writes the most likable emails or has the most popular brand.
- ziftface 6y ago
  To add to this, I think the reason this particular developer is seen negatively by some is that he does kick up a lot of dust in these situations. Most developers would (understandably) feel like this wasn't worth their time and just silently give in to the bigger company's wishes. So while his "likeability" is completely irrelevant, how else would we even hear about these issues if he didn't make a big fuss about it? I think that also might explain why we heard of this story twice from the same developer. The truth is people face similar issues every day but no one hears about it. I'm glad that some people kick up a lot of dust and make the issue visible to everyone.
  - finnthehuman 6y ago
    >this particular developer is seen negatively by some is that he does kick up a lot of dust in these situations Developers are often pushovers (no disrespect, I'm often one myself). Anyone who isn't gets passive aggressively labeled with terms that make them easy to conflate with actually bad people. Give 'em hell, Azer.
bufferoverflow 6y ago
We have a lot more than two data points for Google screwing Chrome extension developers.
csagan5 6y ago
Nobody can uncritically take his side but what you are implying here is that we should consider him "less" because of an unrelated story.
- modernthumb 6y ago
  Why can't you uncritically take his side? Because company good, developer mean? If you want to say kik has a right to the three letter package name so be it but absolutely no one has the right to continue using someone else's work for their own gain. Especially not a company that threatened him with lawyers within three emails.
young_unixer 6y ago
In my opinion, the party that behaved the worst in that exchange was npm. Why do Node developers trust such an unprofessional institution?
_bxg1 6y ago
On the other hand we've seen this kind of behavior from Google time and again, even on its flagship platforms like Android and YouTube. The Chrome Extensions store is likely the bottom of the barrel when it comes to priorities, so I have no trouble believing things would be even worse there.
- victorhooi 6y ago
  If you're referring to the recent controversy around Pushbullet - I thought that was revealed to be them asking for all access to any HTTP/HTTPS websites you viewed...which is a major security breach. They removed that permission to limit it to only Pushbullet, and then were able to get back on. I'm not saying there couldn't have been more hand-holding - but it wasn't exactly like it wasn't for a fairly egregious security breach. (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not in any Chrome/Android/Store team, or anything even vaguely related to that - this is purely my own opinion).
  - alias_neo 6y ago
    I believe Pushbullet needed it's permissions for the features it offered, they even tried removing features and permissions just to appease Google. Regardless of that, just tell people what they've done wrong, developers are surely jaded by being told absolutely nothing about what or why some faceless mega corp is trampling all over their day. Is it any wonder people like OP lash out in frustration and just pull all of their work when one has no means to obtain a straight answer? The man has a young child, and that is work enough, but it also puts things into perspective, and honestly, as a father of a months old child, I'd probably respond to this in the same way and think "fuck it, one less frustration" and just pull it too.
    - pvg 6y ago
      I believe Pushbullet needed it's permissions for the features it offered The PB post describes them removing permissions they realized they didn't need, you can check their writeup. Google's handling of this was poor but PB had real problems. In this extension's case, we haven't even seen what notices Google sent.
neya 6y ago
In the links you've shared, I thought the author (Azer) was on the right to behave the way he did. I don't see it as a reason to discount his current experience because of that either.
- superasn 6y ago
  Actually if anyone behaved poorly, it was npm not Azer. I'm shocked to see that something like this could happen on npm - where a single threat of getting lawyers involved can get your package transferred away from you. It really wants to make me not publish anything on npm too actually.
  - egeozcan 6y ago
    Totally agree. I'm shocked to see that people actually think less of Azer because of what he did. Why keep your work on a company that bullies you like that?
- jv22222 6y ago
  Just came here to say the same thing. He didn't need to swear and be so bratty about it, but yeah it seems to me he was not wrong.
- leppr 6y ago
  "Integrity" is not a desirable trait in this day and age. A developer is of little use if they don't respond to short term individualistic incentives.
  - DDR0 6y ago
    Au contraire. A developer with integrity will become a senior with integrity, and when you're dealing with people -- which you will be if you are not already -- you get a reputation for being fair and just. People will not deal anywhere near as favourably if you have a reputation for displaying a severe lack of integrity.
- chmod775 6y ago
  They would have no case if they actually tried to go after him to "defend" their trademark. His mail was just empty threats. You can't just trademark 3 letters in a way so that nobody else can use them. In fact there's hundreds of trademarks that are the letters "kik" in various logos[1]. What they trademarked is a bunch of specific logos containing those letters. Doesn't prevent other people from also using those 3 letters in some other way. In fact when he wrote "kik", my first thought was the he was talking about the German textile discount store - which is the first result for me when I google those letters. [1]: https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=kik https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=kik
fxtentacle 6y ago
I believe that in the left-pad case, NPM severely violated the overall trust put in their management by handing over a package name (that other people might depend on) without a legal process. Now that NPM has faltered like that once, you basically need to verify yourself that every package that you use is still the same one by the same author, i.e. that NPM hasn't silently transferred the name to someone else.
- junon 6y ago
  I maintain quite a few high-traffic packages on npm and have done so for years. Npm is really bad about handling any sort of situation with any amount of grace. Per my anecdotal experience, they are really good at choosing the outcome that benefits them the most/harms them the least - which wouldn't upset me since most companies do this, but it's Npm's "we're here for the community" type of fake attitude that has always bothered me.
CathedralBorrow 6y ago
What was the "other side" of leftpad? As far as I remember, the broken system wrought havoc, not the developer who chose to withdraw his modules. I don't think the developer's reasons are much relevant when discussing how reliable their word is.
- dspillett 6y ago
  The broken system allowed him to be a dick. OK, so the is more to it than that and he did have a genuine grievance (I forgot exactly what) bit in dealing with that he caused a pile collateral damage for innocent bystanders. (Innocent bystanders who errantly put too much faith in dependency oriented programming which brings us back to the broken system)
  - alias_neo 6y ago
    It's his work, and he had every right to pull every module he hosts there in protest. If this was a walk out or some other form of protest, nobody would be calling him a dick, I think that's a little out of order. That said, the system is definitely broken. His reaction to the Kik thing is probably where he was at fault, I think it would have been reasonable for him to back down there; companies, in the US at least are obligated to protect their IP in order to retain their rights over it (as far as I have understood from various discussions on HN), but perhaps the forceful lawyering got his back up? Also I have no idea of jurisdiction of any parties involved, I just assume US.
    - orestarod 6y ago
      It's always safe to back down if you don't have the guts to go on, but you can't say it's a fault not to back down.
  - ivanhoe 6y ago
    > Innocent bystanders who errantly put too much faith in dependency oriented programming and who need an external package to leftpad a string... the most fascinating part of that story to me...
roadbeats 6y ago
> With leftpad he told Kik, "fuck you" In response to a threat starting with "We don’t mean to be a dick about it" and ending with "our trademark lawyers are going to be banging on your door and taking down your accounts and stuff like that", I did say "fuck you" to Kik. If that makes me the character in your mind, enjoy your imagination.
- stevenjohns 6y ago
  It seems that lots of people are missing that part. The Kik guys were doing their corporate double-speak b/s about ‘let’s find a solution’ when the only solution is handing over the name. All while threatening with door-banging lawyers. And he did offer them a solution: $30,000 dollars, to which they promptly - albeit indirectly - replied with fuck you.
  - ivanhoe 6y ago
    well, friendly solutions don't charge per hour, unlike lawyers...
  - otterley 6y ago
    Because they didn't have to pay him $30k. They had a registered trademark and a right to use the name. And in the end, they didn’t have to spend nearly that amount. All they had to do was send a few emails to the npm maintainers. I’d say they made a logical decision.
    - jbverschoor 6y ago
      The right to use that name in a certain context. Kik was a dick. 30k is a lot, but lawyers would’ve cost way more than that
      - otterley 6y ago
        An initial consult is often free, and even a $500 consult would have been worth every penny because the lawyer would have (correctly) told him to back off and let them have the name. In any event, escalating - even when you think the other party is being a dick - is never the right answer.
justicezyx 6y ago
How true! Your own comments come out as one-sided as anyone can be...
grumple 6y ago
Sounds like he's a pretty prolific developer who's sick of dealing with mega-corporate bureaucracies screwing him over.
Technetium 6y ago
You've remembered that the author has written another article at some point that is completely and wholeheartedly unrelated to this story; and the point it attempts to make. Why is this the top comment?
thread_id 6y ago
Perhaps your position might be better understood if you shared your own story about a project that you have invested so much time and energy creating and building. You may have tread a different path when confronted with such obstacles. The community would be enlightened by your experience.
huffmsa 6y ago
He's got a pretty good shitbird radar. Npm not only didn't realize that this guy was more important to their community and NodeJS on the whole than a one off from Kik, but they sold out to GitHub / M$FT. All that for something that hasn't been updated in 2 years https://www.npmjs.com/package/@kikinteractive/kik https://www.npmjs.com/package/@kikinteractive/kik
bosswipe 6y ago
This comment is just straight ad-hominem.
- bartread 6y ago
  Not true at all. I'm saying we don't know the whole story. That's not to say that what he's saying is untrue but that, without some corroboration, or hearing from the other party (Google), it can't be relied upon. Granted, all I know of the author is based on what I've seen of his past behaviour. That does make me a little sceptical that his account of events represents the sum totality of truth around the situation. I don't believe that's an unreasonable perspective. It does not mean the account is false, or that I lack sympathy for him[1], or that I'm unwilling to see or understand his point of view. What I was concerned by is that in the comments I was seeing nothing but unalloyed support, which I did not think was warranted based on what we know. I think I've been pretty clear about that. I also think it's a shame that he's chosen to yank the extension, but that's obviously his choice and I can understand why he made it. [1] Different context entirely but I've had my own issues with Google's algorithms, along with the sense of being left in the dark about why. I made some, actually useful, changes but I've still no idea if those are the reason the issues were resolved. Regardless, I'm glad that they have been resolved.
raverbashing 6y ago
To me it sounds like both sides had their own (though different) tone-deafness. "Oh I didn't know there was a company with that name" well, now you know. How would you like to go into NPM and find someone has created a package with your or your company's name? At the same time Kik's answer of "we're nice people but we're sending the lawyers" does not come across as friendly. And yes, NPMs response is not surprising. They're going to side with the trademark owner, unless there was a very good reason not to (like the MikeRowSoft case) Note to npm (or some future package repo site): create package namespaces. Allow renaming and maybe aliases.
- bartread 6y ago
  > Note to npm (or some future package repo site): create package namespaces. Allow renaming and maybe aliases. I have a friend who encountered a similar scenario with a company claiming trademark on a name. In their case they simply changed the package name. It was frustrating but it meant everybody was able to move on without any drama. Subsequently, as far as I'm aware, the trademark holder has never even published a package under the original name. So I suppose that makes it doubly irritating, but such is life. I think your suggestion would have neatly avoided a lot of these kinds of issues in the first place.

ivanhoe 6y ago

The perspective of the other side is not hard to guess here: support costs money, it's way easier and cheaper to automate it, and if it hurts a few people here and there no one really cares because there're millions of other users (and no much alternative anyway). We all know that Google's support sucks, even they know it very well, just they don't give a shit. Everyone's pissed about this for years - anyone who ever tried to debug adsense, gmail or youtube account getting blocked out of the blue, or android app being flagged for no reason has gone through pretty much the same process this guy describes. Internet is full of horror stories of this kind, it's very well documented. The only difference here is that most of us goes "c'est la vie" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, and we continue using their services because - well - everyone else does it, what else could we do... while this guy doesn't mind giving them the finger... which will, and of course he knows that, hurt him much more than Google - but that's a move to be respected imho...

acituan 6y ago

> I only have two data points, so the behaviour here is a coincidence rather than a pattern, but I will guarantee you whatever you think of Google there is more to this than meets the eye. You seem to want us to question the narrative based on the likability of the developer, but is it really relevant? Can you really imagine a data point that we don't know that will change the narrative of "solo developer getting steamrolled by corporate machinery"? Because that is what is happening in both cases. I want to be clear, this is not even about the solo developer actually being in the right, it is about the process or lack thereof that takes place to reach the conclusion. You might not like this particular guy, but I guarantee you a more likable guy would be/will be/is being equally strong-armed in these lopsided processes. Transparency, accountability and fairness would make all of us happy and not left guessing who might be right based on who writes the most likable emails or has the most popular brand.

ziftface 6y ago
To add to this, I think the reason this particular developer is seen negatively by some is that he does kick up a lot of dust in these situations. Most developers would (understandably) feel like this wasn't worth their time and just silently give in to the bigger company's wishes. So while his "likeability" is completely irrelevant, how else would we even hear about these issues if he didn't make a big fuss about it? I think that also might explain why we heard of this story twice from the same developer. The truth is people face similar issues every day but no one hears about it. I'm glad that some people kick up a lot of dust and make the issue visible to everyone.
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  >this particular developer is seen negatively by some is that he does kick up a lot of dust in these situations Developers are often pushovers (no disrespect, I'm often one myself). Anyone who isn't gets passive aggressively labeled with terms that make them easy to conflate with actually bad people. Give 'em hell, Azer.

bufferoverflow 6y ago

We have a lot more than two data points for Google screwing Chrome extension developers.

csagan5 6y ago

Nobody can uncritically take his side but what you are implying here is that we should consider him "less" because of an unrelated story.

modernthumb 6y ago
Why can't you uncritically take his side? Because company good, developer mean? If you want to say kik has a right to the three letter package name so be it but absolutely no one has the right to continue using someone else's work for their own gain. Especially not a company that threatened him with lawyers within three emails.

young_unixer 6y ago

In my opinion, the party that behaved the worst in that exchange was npm. Why do Node developers trust such an unprofessional institution?

_bxg1 6y ago

On the other hand we've seen this kind of behavior from Google time and again, even on its flagship platforms like Android and YouTube. The Chrome Extensions store is likely the bottom of the barrel when it comes to priorities, so I have no trouble believing things would be even worse there.

victorhooi 6y ago
If you're referring to the recent controversy around Pushbullet - I thought that was revealed to be them asking for all access to any HTTP/HTTPS websites you viewed...which is a major security breach. They removed that permission to limit it to only Pushbullet, and then were able to get back on. I'm not saying there couldn't have been more hand-holding - but it wasn't exactly like it wasn't for a fairly egregious security breach. (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not in any Chrome/Android/Store team, or anything even vaguely related to that - this is purely my own opinion).
- alias_neo 6y ago
  I believe Pushbullet needed it's permissions for the features it offered, they even tried removing features and permissions just to appease Google. Regardless of that, just tell people what they've done wrong, developers are surely jaded by being told absolutely nothing about what or why some faceless mega corp is trampling all over their day. Is it any wonder people like OP lash out in frustration and just pull all of their work when one has no means to obtain a straight answer? The man has a young child, and that is work enough, but it also puts things into perspective, and honestly, as a father of a months old child, I'd probably respond to this in the same way and think "fuck it, one less frustration" and just pull it too.
  - pvg 6y ago
    I believe Pushbullet needed it's permissions for the features it offered The PB post describes them removing permissions they realized they didn't need, you can check their writeup. Google's handling of this was poor but PB had real problems. In this extension's case, we haven't even seen what notices Google sent.

neya 6y ago

In the links you've shared, I thought the author (Azer) was on the right to behave the way he did. I don't see it as a reason to discount his current experience because of that either.

superasn 6y ago
Actually if anyone behaved poorly, it was npm not Azer. I'm shocked to see that something like this could happen on npm - where a single threat of getting lawyers involved can get your package transferred away from you. It really wants to make me not publish anything on npm too actually.
- egeozcan 6y ago
  Totally agree. I'm shocked to see that people actually think less of Azer because of what he did. Why keep your work on a company that bullies you like that?
jv22222 6y ago
Just came here to say the same thing. He didn't need to swear and be so bratty about it, but yeah it seems to me he was not wrong.
leppr 6y ago
"Integrity" is not a desirable trait in this day and age. A developer is of little use if they don't respond to short term individualistic incentives.
- DDR0 6y ago
  Au contraire. A developer with integrity will become a senior with integrity, and when you're dealing with people -- which you will be if you are not already -- you get a reputation for being fair and just. People will not deal anywhere near as favourably if you have a reputation for displaying a severe lack of integrity.
chmod775 6y ago
They would have no case if they actually tried to go after him to "defend" their trademark. His mail was just empty threats. You can't just trademark 3 letters in a way so that nobody else can use them. In fact there's hundreds of trademarks that are the letters "kik" in various logos[1]. What they trademarked is a bunch of specific logos containing those letters. Doesn't prevent other people from also using those 3 letters in some other way. In fact when he wrote "kik", my first thought was the he was talking about the German textile discount store - which is the first result for me when I google those letters. [1]: https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=kik https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=kik

fxtentacle 6y ago

I believe that in the left-pad case, NPM severely violated the overall trust put in their management by handing over a package name (that other people might depend on) without a legal process. Now that NPM has faltered like that once, you basically need to verify yourself that every package that you use is still the same one by the same author, i.e. that NPM hasn't silently transferred the name to someone else.

junon 6y ago
I maintain quite a few high-traffic packages on npm and have done so for years. Npm is really bad about handling any sort of situation with any amount of grace. Per my anecdotal experience, they are really good at choosing the outcome that benefits them the most/harms them the least - which wouldn't upset me since most companies do this, but it's Npm's "we're here for the community" type of fake attitude that has always bothered me.

CathedralBorrow 6y ago

What was the "other side" of leftpad? As far as I remember, the broken system wrought havoc, not the developer who chose to withdraw his modules. I don't think the developer's reasons are much relevant when discussing how reliable their word is.

dspillett 6y ago
The broken system allowed him to be a dick. OK, so the is more to it than that and he did have a genuine grievance (I forgot exactly what) bit in dealing with that he caused a pile collateral damage for innocent bystanders. (Innocent bystanders who errantly put too much faith in dependency oriented programming which brings us back to the broken system)
- alias_neo 6y ago
  It's his work, and he had every right to pull every module he hosts there in protest. If this was a walk out or some other form of protest, nobody would be calling him a dick, I think that's a little out of order. That said, the system is definitely broken. His reaction to the Kik thing is probably where he was at fault, I think it would have been reasonable for him to back down there; companies, in the US at least are obligated to protect their IP in order to retain their rights over it (as far as I have understood from various discussions on HN), but perhaps the forceful lawyering got his back up? Also I have no idea of jurisdiction of any parties involved, I just assume US.
  - orestarod 6y ago
    It's always safe to back down if you don't have the guts to go on, but you can't say it's a fault not to back down.
- ivanhoe 6y ago
  > Innocent bystanders who errantly put too much faith in dependency oriented programming and who need an external package to leftpad a string... the most fascinating part of that story to me...

roadbeats 6y ago

> With leftpad he told Kik, "fuck you" In response to a threat starting with "We don’t mean to be a dick about it" and ending with "our trademark lawyers are going to be banging on your door and taking down your accounts and stuff like that", I did say "fuck you" to Kik. If that makes me the character in your mind, enjoy your imagination.

stevenjohns 6y ago
It seems that lots of people are missing that part. The Kik guys were doing their corporate double-speak b/s about ‘let’s find a solution’ when the only solution is handing over the name. All while threatening with door-banging lawyers. And he did offer them a solution: $30,000 dollars, to which they promptly - albeit indirectly - replied with fuck you.
- ivanhoe 6y ago
  well, friendly solutions don't charge per hour, unlike lawyers...
- otterley 6y ago
  Because they didn't have to pay him $30k. They had a registered trademark and a right to use the name. And in the end, they didn’t have to spend nearly that amount. All they had to do was send a few emails to the npm maintainers. I’d say they made a logical decision.
  - jbverschoor 6y ago
    The right to use that name in a certain context. Kik was a dick. 30k is a lot, but lawyers would’ve cost way more than that
    - otterley 6y ago
      An initial consult is often free, and even a $500 consult would have been worth every penny because the lawyer would have (correctly) told him to back off and let them have the name. In any event, escalating - even when you think the other party is being a dick - is never the right answer.

justicezyx 6y ago

How true! Your own comments come out as one-sided as anyone can be...

grumple 6y ago

Sounds like he's a pretty prolific developer who's sick of dealing with mega-corporate bureaucracies screwing him over.

Technetium 6y ago

You've remembered that the author has written another article at some point that is completely and wholeheartedly unrelated to this story; and the point it attempts to make. Why is this the top comment?

thread_id 6y ago

Perhaps your position might be better understood if you shared your own story about a project that you have invested so much time and energy creating and building. You may have tread a different path when confronted with such obstacles. The community would be enlightened by your experience.

huffmsa 6y ago

He's got a pretty good shitbird radar. Npm not only didn't realize that this guy was more important to their community and NodeJS on the whole than a one off from Kik, but they sold out to GitHub / M$FT. All that for something that hasn't been updated in 2 years https://www.npmjs.com/package/@kikinteractive/kik https://www.npmjs.com/package/@kikinteractive/kik

bosswipe 6y ago

This comment is just straight ad-hominem.

bartread 6y ago
Not true at all. I'm saying we don't know the whole story. That's not to say that what he's saying is untrue but that, without some corroboration, or hearing from the other party (Google), it can't be relied upon. Granted, all I know of the author is based on what I've seen of his past behaviour. That does make me a little sceptical that his account of events represents the sum totality of truth around the situation. I don't believe that's an unreasonable perspective. It does not mean the account is false, or that I lack sympathy for him[1], or that I'm unwilling to see or understand his point of view. What I was concerned by is that in the comments I was seeing nothing but unalloyed support, which I did not think was warranted based on what we know. I think I've been pretty clear about that. I also think it's a shame that he's chosen to yank the extension, but that's obviously his choice and I can understand why he made it. [1] Different context entirely but I've had my own issues with Google's algorithms, along with the sense of being left in the dark about why. I made some, actually useful, changes but I've still no idea if those are the reason the issues were resolved. Regardless, I'm glad that they have been resolved.

raverbashing 6y ago

To me it sounds like both sides had their own (though different) tone-deafness. "Oh I didn't know there was a company with that name" well, now you know. How would you like to go into NPM and find someone has created a package with your or your company's name? At the same time Kik's answer of "we're nice people but we're sending the lawyers" does not come across as friendly. And yes, NPMs response is not surprising. They're going to side with the trademark owner, unless there was a very good reason not to (like the MikeRowSoft case) Note to npm (or some future package repo site): create package namespaces. Allow renaming and maybe aliases.

bartread 6y ago
> Note to npm (or some future package repo site): create package namespaces. Allow renaming and maybe aliases. I have a friend who encountered a similar scenario with a company claiming trademark on a name. In their case they simply changed the package name. It was frustrating but it meant everybody was able to move on without any drama. Subsequently, as far as I'm aware, the trademark holder has never even published a package under the original name. So I suppose that makes it doubly irritating, but such is life. I think your suggestion would have neatly avoided a lot of these kinds of issues in the first place.