[frumplestlatz]

I wasn’t describing a legal dispute, and I haven’t made any claim about infringement. “Material misrepresentation” refers to the substance of the public messaging, not to a legal violation.

The issue I raised is that the phrasing and the way the fork has been presented create the impression of continuity and endorsement that doesn’t exist. That’s a reputational and ethical concern, not a legal debate. Calling it “the next evolution of SQLite” is, in practice, absolutely trading on the SQLite name.

There was a very public, one-sided disagreement about SQLite’s contribution model at the time, and you’ve been open about your criticisms of SQLite in the years since. That’s the context for my comment; it isn’t something I’ve imagined.

[glommer]

I understood your criticism. I disagree with it, and I think we are not misrepresenting anything, as we make it very clear that we are not SQLite, we are just a reimplementation that goes beyond it (evolution).

The disagreement about their contribution model of course happened, but the meaning you ascribe to it, perhaps is something you imagined. It boils down to what you understand "criticism" to be.

If I see someone doing something wrong, I will criticize them. That certainly never happened. What happened is that we pointed out pros and cons of an open and closed development model. We believe a piece of technology that plays the role of SQLite would benefit from having an open model. And exactly because they are absolutely not doing nothing wrong with not being open, we created our own thing. Hard to see how that is a "criticism".

I said that a billion times, and here's a billion and one: there's absolutely nothing wrong with a closed model. SQLite is doing nothing wrong. They contributed tremendously to the databases we used every day.

I do think an Open model yields so many benefits that should someone rewrite SQLite with an open model, even starting 20 years later, they would end up ahead.

There is now a very easy way to prove or disprove this particular hypothesis.

Stay tuned!

[frumplestlatz]

You’ve reframed this as a discussion about open versus closed development. That wasn’t the point I raised.

My concern is about presentation, ethics, respect, and about the co-option of a gift to the commons — particularly how your public messaging gives readers the impression of lineage and endorsement that doesn’t exist.

Regardless of your intent, that’s the effect of calling Turso “the next evolution of SQLite.” You’re welcome to disagree; it would be very strange if you didn’t.

[glommer]

Yes, this is (one of) the point(s) you raised. You said there was a public an "unpleasant fight" (never happened) because of "criticism of SQLite" on my part. I calmly explained that such thing never took place. I have a preference towards Open models but never criticized SQLite (as in stated that they are wrong). Where does the unpleasant fight comes from?

Your claim that we are doing something ethically wrong seems to be informed by your pre-existing opinion of me, that itself derives from the "unpleasant fight" (that never happened).

As for the tagline we use, most people don't get the impression that there is any violation of ethics or respect. This is evidenced by other people's reaction here. You do, and you are within your right. I can't, unfortunately, please everybody.

Some people are more relevant than others, though: in this case, if the authors of SQLite expressed their opinion to me that this crosses a line in their view, I'd change it, without blinking an eye.

I have a tremendous respect for them, and we want our messaging to convey nothing but that!

[frumplestlatz]

Your focus is on intent; mine is on the ethical consequences of behavior.

The earlier disagreement with SQLite was one-sided because the other side saw no reason to engage. I expect that dynamic will continue.