I have no context here, but from reading the post, it sounds like they did in fact pick a different name, but they picked one that let them reuse the same execu

I have no context here, but from reading the post, it sounds like they did in fact pick a different name, but they picked one that let them reuse the same executable name for API compatibility. In the business world, picking a different name for marketing and using functional elements for compatibility is a good way to get sued but win. See, for instance, Sega v. Accolade - Accolade sold software for the Sega Genesis without Sega's approval. Sega added something to the Genesis game loader which checked for the string "SEGA" and displayed the message "Produced by or under license from Sega Enterprises LTD." Accolade's games caused that message to appear, even though there was no license. The courts ruled that Accolade was entitled to do this, because the point was compatibility.