Hmm. I've actually changed my mind, (though not about their rejection of npm) -- after digging around, I see that there's been more communication about how Meteor plans to make money, and hearing that they have feasible plans that don't sound like a conflict of interest with open source is better than any technical argument for assuaging concerns.

But about me 'imputing bad motives', or whatever -- I said "worry", and "almost adversarial", and I stand by that.

When a company pops up and says "Hi, we're from Silicon Valley, and we have a plan to monetize a framework made from your language of choice; we have VC funding and we leap-frogged similar community frameworks -- now, if you want to write apps with the new hotness, please use our new package manager instead of the excellent community one, and don't install our framework with the community standard method either" ...

You worry. You just do. I think that meteor/derby/etc style app dev is the future, so I'm worried by anything that might threaten to lock it down.

I'm glad to see that upon investigation that worry is diminished, though. And obviously I applaud your efforts in advancing that future (I just wish that it were done in an 'npm install meteor' way).