4 ms·

I don't want the SQLite trademark.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Your manifesto and accompanying blog post are lay out your desire for your fork to be the official SQLite. That is contrary to the inclinations of the SQLite developers, who don't accept outside contributions, so you are trying to coerce a change to their policy using public shaming and call-out tactics. So you claim you don't want the trademark signed over to you, but you do want access to the trademark opened up to your fork.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  Eh, u/glommer is calling it libSQL, not anything with "SQLite" in the name, so I wouldn't assume that u/glommer wants the trademark. But u/glommer does want some of SQLite's reputation to attach to libSQL -- that's going to be an uphill battle.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > u/glommer is calling it libSQL, not anything with "SQLite" in the name The blog post makes clear that being a fork is "a losing proposition in the long term." Because SQLite developers own the trademark to SQLite, the only way for this fork to not be a fork is if SQLite gives in to the demands of the manifesto.
    - cryptonector 4y ago
      I don't think it's because of the trademark that forking it is a losing proposition. It's because of: - the proprietary test suite - the SQLite team's reputation - SQLite's reputation (which relates to the test suite) - the SQLite Consortium, which funds the SQLite team - funding The trademark is the least of these. I don't find TFA at all compelling, and I find it distasteful, but I wouldn't impute on the author(s) that they want the SQLite trademark, especially given that they didn't even bring it up.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > SQLite's reputation This is the one. If it were really about the proprietary test suite and fuzzer, then the manifesto should simply demand that SQLite developers release those proprietary tools. Instead they're demanding that SQLite accept a change of contributor policy and correspondingly change their code of conduct. They're wrestling for control of the brand, not merely some tools. And yeah maybe they're after the money the SQLite Consortium gets too. But I think that's downstream from SQLite's brand recognition.
        cryptonector 4y ago
        That is a fair take, and now I agree. I suspect that u/glommer et. al. hadn't understood the importance of that test suite, else they would have mentioned it. To me libSQL seems like pie in the sky. They're making demands and threatening a fork, but w/o any evidence of sufficient resources the threats are empty and the demands will go unmet.

Your manifesto and accompanying blog post are lay out your desire for your fork to be the official SQLite. That is contrary to the inclinations of the SQLite developers, who don't accept outside contributions, so you are trying to coerce a change to their policy using public shaming and call-out tactics. So you claim you don't want the trademark signed over to you, but you do want access to the trademark opened up to your fork.

cryptonector 4y ago
Eh, u/glommer is calling it libSQL, not anything with "SQLite" in the name, so I wouldn't assume that u/glommer wants the trademark. But u/glommer does want some of SQLite's reputation to attach to libSQL -- that's going to be an uphill battle.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > u/glommer is calling it libSQL, not anything with "SQLite" in the name The blog post makes clear that being a fork is "a losing proposition in the long term." Because SQLite developers own the trademark to SQLite, the only way for this fork to not be a fork is if SQLite gives in to the demands of the manifesto.
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    I don't think it's because of the trademark that forking it is a losing proposition. It's because of: - the proprietary test suite - the SQLite team's reputation - SQLite's reputation (which relates to the test suite) - the SQLite Consortium, which funds the SQLite team - funding The trademark is the least of these. I don't find TFA at all compelling, and I find it distasteful, but I wouldn't impute on the author(s) that they want the SQLite trademark, especially given that they didn't even bring it up.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > SQLite's reputation This is the one. If it were really about the proprietary test suite and fuzzer, then the manifesto should simply demand that SQLite developers release those proprietary tools. Instead they're demanding that SQLite accept a change of contributor policy and correspondingly change their code of conduct. They're wrestling for control of the brand, not merely some tools. And yeah maybe they're after the money the SQLite Consortium gets too. But I think that's downstream from SQLite's brand recognition.
      - cryptonector 4y ago
        That is a fair take, and now I agree. I suspect that u/glommer et. al. hadn't understood the importance of that test suite, else they would have mentioned it. To me libSQL seems like pie in the sky. They're making demands and threatening a fork, but w/o any evidence of sufficient resources the threats are empty and the demands will go unmet.