The package is not a malware because the evidence presented does not provide conclusive proof of malicious intent. Both pieces of evidence point towards a lack of trustworthiness and maturity, but not malicious activity.

• Evidence 0: The small number of published versions (4) suggests the project is relatively new or inactive. This is a risk factor, as it indicates a lack of community scrutiny and potential for vulnerabilities to go unnoticed. However, it's not definitive proof of malware. Many legitimate open-source projects start small and grow over time.

• Evidence 1: The low popularity (9 stars, 2 forks) and low OpenSSF score indicate a lack of community trust and validation. Again, this raises concerns about the project's security and maintenance, but it does not automatically equate to malicious intent. Many perfectly legitimate projects remain small and less popular.

The absence of evidence of malicious code execution, suspicious network activity, or other indicators of compromise within the package itself is crucial. The provided analysis lacks this critical information. The low confidence levels assigned to the evidence further supports the conclusion that the suspicion is based on circumstantial evidence rather than concrete proof of malicious behavior. More comprehensive analysis, including static and dynamic code analysis, is required to determine if the package contains any malicious code.