3 ms·

> Forking his project while using the name The don't use the name. They use Turso. Even the HN title is wrong - the article title doesn't mention SQLite. They

> Forking his project while using the name The don't use the name. They use Turso. Even the HN title is wrong - the article title doesn't mention SQLite. They refer to SQLite, but how could you not if that's what you forked from, and that's what has the functionality you're changing. That would be a very weird article if we didn't have that context.

frumplestlatz 1y ago
They state, plainly on their home page: “The next evolution of SQLite” That is a material misrepresentation and absolutely trading on the SQLite name
- bitpush 1y ago
  “The next evolution of SQLite” How? The whole point of trademark is to avoid confusing users that an alternate product is the same as the original product. By explicitly saying "Next evolution of SQLite", or "A fork of SQLite", or a "Better SQLite" .. all of this is saying our product is distinct and different from SQLite. If the fork were called "nue-sqlite" or "sqlitest" or "fastsqlite", there's an argument to be made.
  - frumplestlatz 1y ago
    The issue isn’t that you’re mentioning SQLite or acknowledging that it’s a fork. The problem is that the phrase “the next evolution of SQLite” conveys continuity and endorsement. A reasonable reader could conclude that Turso is an official successor or the next release of SQLite — that it represents the official lineage of the project. Phrasing like “SQLite-compatible,” or “a fork of SQLite” would be clear and factual. Calling it “the next evolution of SQLite” isn’t factual; it’s marketing positioning, and it implies ownership of SQLite’s identity and lineage. This reflects a broader pattern in how the fork has been presented publicly. The messaging often treats the original project as something to be fixed rather than a foundation to be respected. Referring to Turso as a product while leveraging the SQLite name reinforces that framing — co-opting a public-domain engineering gift into a commercial asset.
- immibis 1y ago
  Seems like typical marketing fluff to me.

frumplestlatz 1y ago

They state, plainly on their home page: “The next evolution of SQLite” That is a material misrepresentation and absolutely trading on the SQLite name

bitpush 1y ago
“The next evolution of SQLite” How? The whole point of trademark is to avoid confusing users that an alternate product is the same as the original product. By explicitly saying "Next evolution of SQLite", or "A fork of SQLite", or a "Better SQLite" .. all of this is saying our product is distinct and different from SQLite. If the fork were called "nue-sqlite" or "sqlitest" or "fastsqlite", there's an argument to be made.
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  The issue isn’t that you’re mentioning SQLite or acknowledging that it’s a fork. The problem is that the phrase “the next evolution of SQLite” conveys continuity and endorsement. A reasonable reader could conclude that Turso is an official successor or the next release of SQLite — that it represents the official lineage of the project. Phrasing like “SQLite-compatible,” or “a fork of SQLite” would be clear and factual. Calling it “the next evolution of SQLite” isn’t factual; it’s marketing positioning, and it implies ownership of SQLite’s identity and lineage. This reflects a broader pattern in how the fork has been presented publicly. The messaging often treats the original project as something to be fixed rather than a foundation to be respected. Referring to Turso as a product while leveraging the SQLite name reinforces that framing — co-opting a public-domain engineering gift into a commercial asset.
immibis 1y ago
Seems like typical marketing fluff to me.