[kibwen]

Global namespacing has nothing to do with that. Even with per-user namespacing, there's nothing to stop a user from making their username "nike" and publishing all their code under "nike/package-name", which would be subject to just as much potential legal action as a package named "nike" itself. Likewise there's also nothing to stop Bob from uploading "bob/nike".

[airless_bar]

If course global name-spacing has something to do with it!

What's the difference between a "username" resulting in nike/package-name and a package called nike-package-name?

Not much in practice. Name-spacing doesn't mean "add another made up name entry somewhere".

That's why people who thought about these issues out-sourced this concern completely: Prove your ownership of nike.com and you can publish as nike.com.

Suddenly 99.9% of the trademark issues are gone, handled by registrars.

I think this approach is pretty obvious and I find the lack of thought coming from rust devs deeply concerning.

[kibwen]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The problem exists independently of whether or not global namespacing is implemented by a package repository. Nike would have just as much authority to remove a "nike" package in a global namespace as it would to remove "bob/nike" (which is to say, almost no authority whatsoever).

I have no dog in the fight over whether or not a global namespace is a good idea, but it's tiresome to see irrelevant arguments being trotted out against global namespacing.

[airless_bar]

Jesus Christ, just get on with times.

Even Node has overtaken Rust.