[Stratoscope]

It's a blessing, not an obligation or a demand or a condition of use.

Unlike the JSON license clause "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil", the SQLite blessing doesn't put any restriction on your "freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" or on any of the other freedoms listed by the FSF.

It's no different from putting this in a library:

# This work is dedicated to the public domain.

# I hope you enjoy using it!

No one could argue that if you didn't enjoy using the library (maybe the API is a confusing mess) you would somehow be in violation of the license.

p.s. I upvoted your comment because I think you raised an interesting point!

[derleth]

> It's a blessing, not an obligation or a demand or a condition of use.

That's how we interpret it. The problem is that we don't know what the rights-holder has in mind, and what that entity's willing to sue over.

Lawyers can be comically risk-averse. Comical, that is, until you see the kinds of things people actually sue over.

[dchest]

Don't overthink it:

https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

[comex]

The quote explicitly "disclaims copyright" and includes the blessing "in place of a legal notice". It would be truly absurd even for a lawyer to believe that the blessing constitutes a copyright license anyway.

[computer]

See this 3 minute presentation fragment about the "Do not use JSLint for Evil" license clause: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA

[aw3c2]

It's so idiotic. Who of those who do evil in my view, do agree that what they are doing is evil?

[vsl]

> That's how we interpret it.

No. That follows from the fact that the author gives up copyright. No copyright -> no license terms.