The article is written by "ADAM RECVLOHE, HOLLY GRIMM, DESIREE KANE". It sounds more like an opinion article than factual to me. But it's not up to me or anyone else to decide. Changing a company name is an expensive proposition. I don't see it happening without going to court.

> Changing a company name is an expensive proposition

Companies regularly rebrand. A brand depreciates, just like equipment, and so is regularly updated.

Java and JavaScript are just a few technology names that can be perceived as cultural appropriation (Javanese culture from the island of Java, Indonesia)

Mazda is a car manufacturer, however, it also the name of a god.

Pick any technology name and it will have a double meaning in a language or region in the world.

Where do we stop?

It would be more meaningful if the Apache foundation included a link on the homepage explaining the origin of its name and an make an annual contribution to a relevant charity.

If a group with a strong claim to representing one of those names comes forward with a public statement about why it's harmful we can evaluate it. We don't need to create a perfectly generalizable framework to address a specific concrete request.

Are you aware of the origin of the word Apache ? Their name comes from a Zuni word meaning "enemy". It means the Apache tribes have been culturally appropriating a word from a different tribe as a badge of honour. Or doesn't that count?

It is detailed; it is not strong. There are tens of thousands of cultures and minority groups around the world and stereotyping will happen. Said stereotyping in this case is absolutely innocuous and frankly irrelevant in the grand scheme of actual problems indigenous communities have.