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.