This is why even the trademark of a package name by a commercial entity is hostile to OSS. Nothing the currents.dev author has done seems to make him a 'bad actor', except in their interpretation. It looks like the standard lifecyle of extending an OSS project.
What do they expect, and why are they licensing their stuff as MIT if they think this is wrong?
What do they expect, and why are they licensing their stuff as MIT if they think this is wrong?