[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.