Is Turso open-source? is libSQL open-source?
replies(3):
What makes you think that? Limbo is MIT licensed and I don't see any CLA on [1].
[1]: https://github.com/tursodatabase/limbo/blob/main/CONTRIBUTIN...
In fairness though their `libsql::Builder::new_remote_replica` works with the bare `sqld`
libSQL is our fork of SQLite. It adds new features on top of SQLite, such as vector search, replication, server mode, and more. libSQL is open source (MIT license).
The Turso SaaS platform, which provides hosted databases, is not open source.
Limbo (which will be renamed to Turso in the future) is our Rust rewrite of SQLite. It is also open source (MIT license) - https://github.com/tursodatabase/limbo
I know it's super lame to regurgitate LLM output in comments, but I found it interesting that Grok was able to infer [2] what I was talking about when I made this accusation on X some months ago, and it absolutely nailed basically everything I had in mind:
---
Q: Why might Adam think Limbo is an example of "EEE" so "brazen" as to resemble Microsoft in the 90s?
A: Adam Rezich's comment suggests that Pekka Enberg's project, Limbo, could be seen as an example of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" (EEE) tactics, which were notably used by Microsoft in the 1990s. Here's a breakdown of why Adam might think this:
1. Embrace: Limbo starts by embracing SQLite, a widely used, open-source database engine. By aiming for full compatibility with SQLite, Limbo acknowledges and adopts the existing technology, similar to how Microsoft would integrate or support existing standards or technologies in their products.
2. Extend: Limbo extends SQLite by rewriting it in Rust, adding new features like built-in vector search and asynchronous I/O, which are not part of the original SQLite. This extension phase is where Microsoft historically added proprietary features or extensions to standards, making their versions more appealing or functional in certain ways.
3. Extinguish: Although Limbo hasn't reached this phase yet, the potential for extinguishing could arise if Limbo becomes superior enough to make SQLite less relevant or if it leads to a market shift where SQLite users migrate to Limbo due to its enhanced capabilities. Microsoft in the 90s would often extend standards in such a way that their versions became the de facto standard, overshadowing or making competitors' versions obsolete.
The "brazen" aspect comes from the transparency and public nature of the project. Unlike Microsoft's more secretive and strategic approach in the past, Limbo's development is open, with Enberg sharing his plans and progress publicly. This openness, combined with the ambitious goal of completely rewriting a foundational piece of software like SQLite, might seem bold or even audacious, reminiscent of Microsoft's aggressive market strategies but done in a more transparent and community-driven manner.
---
The only thing Grok didn't mention was the overt emphasis on the “community” aspect of this project, which is being promoted as being strictly, even obviously better than sqlite3's way of doing things. For me personally, sqlite3 not being a “community”-focused project is actually a huge advantage—modern programming “communities”, while being good for building hype and allegiance for one's project, generally result in very unpleasant nth-order social effects which have nothing to do with the quality of software.
[0] https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/blob/main/CODE_OF_CO...
Again, opinion. It's core infra, in my opinion at least that should never depend on others or, if the others inevitably screw you over for a few $, you need to be able to move without possibly bankrupting your company.