Calling it “SQLite-compatible” would be one thing. That’s not what they do. They describe it as “the evolution of SQLite”.
It’s absolutely inappropriate and appropriative.
They’ve been poor community members from the start when they publicized their one-sided spat with SQLite over their contribution policy.
The reality is that they are a VC-funded company focused on the “edge database” hypetrain that’s already dying out as it becomes clear that CAP theorem isn’t something you can just pretend doesn’t exist.
It’ll very likely be dead in a few years, but even if it’s not, a VC-funded project isn’t a replacement for SQLite. It would take incredibly unique advantages to shift literally the entire world away from SQLite.
It’s a new thing, not the next evolution of SQLite.
The actual reality is that I personally started the project because its synchronous architecture is holding back performance. You can read all about it in https://penberg.org/papers/penberg-edgesys24.pdf. The design is literally the next evolution of SQLite's architecture.
The founders came from ScyllaDb, I wouldn't be so quick to count them out. The repo has a lot of contributors and traction. As long as the company survives, I think it has a bright future.
The project is MIT licensed with a growing community of contributors. It does not even matter how long the company lives, all that matters is that some of the core contributors live.
So they have a history of using the legitimacy, trust, and infrastructure of the open-source ecosystem to grow adoption and contributions, then gradually shifting constraints in favor of monetization and control?
Either way, the math is different this time. SQLite isn’t heavy server-side software written in Java with weaknesses that leave it obviously open for market disruption.
It’s also a public domain gift to the world that literally everything has deployed — often in extremely demanding and complex environments.
I work for a major consumer product manufacturer, and I can guarantee that we will not be switching away from SQLite anytime soon, and if we ever do, it will not be to a VC-backed project with a history like this one has, no matter how much hype startup bros try to create around the idea of disrespectful and appropriative disruption.
VC-funded ‘open’ databases almost always follow the same arc: borrow legitimacy, capture attention, then fence it off. It’s the inevitability of the incentives they’ve chosen.
You're not wrong about VC-funded database arc, but what history are you even talking about?
I am sure you understand that I have absolutely nothing to do with Scylla's licensing. I have not worked there for four years nor was I ever in a position there that I would even had that opportunity to influence such decisions.
I am also sure you understand that Scylla's development model was completely different: they had AGPL license and contributors had to sign a CLA, which is why they were able to relicense in the first place. Turso is MIT licensed and there's no barrier to contributing and, therefore, already a much bigger contributor base.
I fully understand the scepticism, but you're mistaken about the open source history of Turso's founders.
It’s absolutely inappropriate and appropriative.
They’ve been poor community members from the start when they publicized their one-sided spat with SQLite over their contribution policy.
The reality is that they are a VC-funded company focused on the “edge database” hypetrain that’s already dying out as it becomes clear that CAP theorem isn’t something you can just pretend doesn’t exist.
It’ll very likely be dead in a few years, but even if it’s not, a VC-funded project isn’t a replacement for SQLite. It would take incredibly unique advantages to shift literally the entire world away from SQLite.
It’s a new thing, not the next evolution of SQLite.