Thats a false implication. He did understand copyright, the kik lawyers tried to conflate patents, trademarks, and copyrights. His kik package predated the kik company and therefore his claim to the copyright for his filename was legitimate. Npm further broke the law itself by republishing his package without consent as it had been previously litigated that "open-source" does not mean free or free use. The material still belongs to the owner and can only be used or published as licensed. In this case as part of another module and not as a package itself.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Thats a false implication. He did understand copyright, the kik lawyers tried to conflate patents, trademarks, and copyrights. His kik package predated the kik company and therefore his claim to the copyright for his filename was legitimate. Npm further broke the law itself by republishing his package without consent as it had been previously litigated that "open-source" does not mean free or free use. The material still belongs to the owner and can only be used or published as licensed. In this case as part of another module and not as a package itself.