Amazing you wrote this entire comment without taking a second confirm the premise you're so passionately defending... No one took away his ownership. Marak:

Amazing you wrote this entire comment without taking a second confirm the premise you're so passionately defending... No one took away his ownership. Marak: https://github.com/marak/Faker.js/ https://github.com/marak/Faker.js/ https://www.npmjs.com/package/faker https://www.npmjs.com/package/faker Post: https://github.com/faker-js/faker https://github.com/faker-js/faker https://www.npmjs.com/package/@faker-js/faker https://www.npmjs.com/package/@faker-js/faker Faker.js is not a trademarked term, so someone made a new Faker.js. In fact multiple people did, and one emerged as the preferred fork: https://twitter.com/faker_js/status/1481918305669627905 https://twitter.com/faker_js/status/1481918305669627905 - And to be clear, even if NPM goes and replaces his package with this new fork, it wouldn't take away his ownership. Github could do the same... doesn't take away his ownership. His ownership of a Github page is not his ownership of the code. I don't like this rules-lawyering stuff either, yet this is one time where even if you decide to be purposely inflexible with your understanding of laws/licensing/contracts etc... there's still no issue with how this has been handled.