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.
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!
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.