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 continui

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.