[PenisBanana]

> conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain"

No. What are you talking about? They are not related... other than for people virtually completely new to, well, open source.

You are also completely confused, here, too:

> Yes, the SQLite home page does say "public domain". However, when people interview SQLite create, Richard Hipp, he himself calls it "open source". He also doesn't correct others when they also call it "open source".

They are different things. A project can be both; a person can talk about these two aspects of one project.

[rcxdude]

This quickly gets into the details of definitions, but I think by most people's definitions of 'open source', something that is 'public domain' qualifies as such (see also 'source available' or 'copyleft/free software', one of which is not quite open source and the other is a more restrictive kind of open source. 'permissive' licenses like MIT and similar are closer to public domain but are different to varying degrees of technicality: one of the main problems with 'public domain' is that it's not universally accepted that there's any means to deliberately place a copyrightable work into it, so something like sqlite where the authors are not long dead is not actually public domain according to many jusrisdictions)

[PenisBanana]

^ is a confused demonstration of my point:

> They are different things. A project can be both; a person can talk about these two aspects of one project.

BTW, your pouring on of qualifiers (elsewhere "weasel words") shows your (correct) lack of conviction:

> the details of definitions, but I think by most people's definitions of 'open source', something that is 'public domain' qualifies as such