[djur]

1) OSI says that public domain and open source are not the same thing ("Here’s why it’s a mistake to treat the two terms as synonyms"), not that public domain software cannot be open source.

2) It is simply not true that the SQLite distribution terms "contain[] a prohibition on using it for evil". That is not in the text you linked.

[greyface-]

The OSI post concludes that "an open source user or developer cannot safely include public domain source code in a project". Has SQLite done something that makes it an exception to this?

I will concede that the exhortation against use for evil in the license text is probably not legally binding.

[djur]

The OSI has approved a public domain dedication, so clearly they accept public domain software as OSD-compliant:

https://opensource.org/license/unlicense

An advisory blog post warning people not to assume that "public domain" code is actually unencumbered is not the same as saying that actually public domain code is not open source.

[greyface-]

The OSI approval of the Unlicense notes:

> It is an attempt to dedicate a work to the public domain (which, taken alone, would not be approved as an open source license) but it also has wording commonly used for license grants.

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

It's clear OSI considers this extra wording, above and beyond the public domain declaration, to be what qualifies it as truly unencumbered. SQLite's license does not contain similar language, and has not been similarly qualified by the OSI.

[umanwizard]

Regardless of their dumb nonsensical rejection of public domain, you did the opposite of what was asked. I was asking for examples of open-source software that is not free in the Free Software sense, and you gave an example of something that is too free for the OSI.