I remember several years ago, I was considering pushing for some changes to our application to use a database like sqlite instead of a proprietary flat file format. I remember reading through the source and realizing how beautiful C source code could be, compared to the prop C code I was used to working on. That plus the constant improvement, stellar performance, and beautiful source code make Sqlite one of the top most gems of open-source software in my opinion. Huge props to Dwayne Hipp and the other contributors to this database which has enabled so many apps and products!
Has anyone heard of any issues using SQLite in jurisdictions without a concept of the public domain? The copyright page [1] seems to imply that you'd need to buy a license from Hwaci.
It remains an open legal question (at least in the United States) whether or not an author even can voluntarily release something into the public domain. Hwaci could theoretically decide that, actually, that they never really put SQLite in the public domain and in fact possess full copyright over it and would like not only current and future licensing fees, but also retroactive fees from everyone who's used it over the past 20 years without legal permission. Lawsuits ensue, pandemonium happens, etc.
However, if you actually did acquire a license from them beforehand (when it was still theoretically free), they'd have no ground to sue and such a case brought against you would be thrown out of court immediately.
Everyone is happily using public domain software in all jurisdictions. The timezone code used by many (all?) Linux and Unix distributions is public domain.
If you can find a jurisdiction without the explicit concept of the public domain and judges and lawyers that think there is no implicit concept of the public domain and someone who can claim copyright with a straight face to code that explicitly states that the authors relinquish their claim, then I still suspect it would get thrown out of court and the claimant opening themselves to charges of criminal fraud (entrapment and extortion) or abusing the justice system for profit.
Generally I don't think so, but sometimes legal departments are extremely careful and would rather spend money on an explicit license than relying on something they see as not 100% certain.
Offering this "service" seems like a great way to monetize your software, because it only hits those with overcautious legal departments that really don't care about the money, and everyone is happy: Legal gets their paperwork, company pays some amount that they don't care about, author gets money, engineers get to use it, everyone else who doesn't have a paranoid legal department gets to use it without any hurdles.
I'm pretty sure the author got sick of getting (from his perspective stupid) requests "hey you already said it's free but can you give that to us in writing, our lawyers won't let us use it otherwise" so he turned bureaucracy into money.
Edit: It's also a convenient way for companies to support the project with money. Very few companies have a "donate to this open source project" process, most have a "buy this software" process, so a company where the people using SQLite would like the company to pay for it now has a convenient way to do so.
Richard Hipp is a devout Christian, and demonstrates James 2:18: "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."
Thanks for the blessings and the beautiful code; you really can be a poet in any language.
That's pretty cool in some ways. In other ways it's interesting as a reflection of the author's obvious preference for subjective ethics.
For example, what is good? A lot of people share concepts of what is good, but a lot of people really don't. Not because they're bad people, but because life circumstances typically go way deeper than good and evil, for instance. So--what is the author saying, really?
Subjective stuff like this isn't bad, but it does really lead directly into the deeper questions.
Also, how does one determine whether they've taken more than they've given? A lot of people are going to bring subjective past impressions into this determination, which, like good & bad above, are complex enough that you can make that take-or-give-o-meter read just about anything--and again, justify--just about anything.
So on the one hand, it's nice that it's framed as a generous blessing, and good lord does it cut right through all that stupid legal bull! And on the other hand, people who place boring, obtuse, business law terminology where this project has placed a blessing have really good reasons for doing so, as such efforts, which get at objective use cases and expectations, have helped to remediate a lot of damage done by a bit too much subjectivity and projection of expectations in our communications.
> "The author's obvious preference for subjective ethics"
I doubt this interpretation, given SQLite's Code of Ethics (https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html). Abrahamic faiths and subjective ethics don't go well together; "I am the way, the truth, and the life" doesn't leave much room for alternatives.
Has it ever been shown in court that there's any real point to putting a license at the top of every file? I'd think that the whole project is licensed under some terms, rather than having to do each file individually....
Anyway, I think structuring it as a blessing means that it doesn't tell us much about the author's view of ethics. Which is to say, it is so clearly just a reminder to the reader that they should be their best self, that it couldn't possibly be misinterpreted as the actual, objective legal requirements. So, those must be somewhere else, right?
> For example, what is good? A lot of people share concepts of what is good, but a lot of people really don't. Not because they're bad people, but because life circumstances typically go way deeper than good and evil, for instance. So--what is the author saying, really?
I like it when software and spirituality come together. Reminds me of "the temple of God" operating system and I'm sure there's a lot of other developers who have sort of a spiritual or rapture experience.
From a way more zany far out and perhaps metaphysical perspective I mean God if he she or they exists really is the ultimate programmer crafting whole realities. Maybe there is an inherent spiritual connection in code? Even if it's just analogical
I can't respons to randerson's comment directly because it's dead, I'd recommend he look at Aquinas' just war theory and other Christian ideas on when war is ok. There are many problems with the military industrial complex we have but that does not mean we should have no defense. Guided missile destroyers fulfill a legitimate defense role and would be needed even if we were much less interventionist.
thunderbong|4 years ago
> If you are reading this on GitHub or some other Git repository or service, then you are looking at a mirror.
The same file from the fossil repository -
https://sqlite.org/src/file?name=src/main.c&ci=trunk
inopinatus|4 years ago
durkie|4 years ago
ridaj|4 years ago
Areading314|4 years ago
DylanSp|4 years ago
[1] https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
sb057|4 years ago
However, if you actually did acquire a license from them beforehand (when it was still theoretically free), they'd have no ground to sue and such a case brought against you would be thrown out of court immediately.
stubish|4 years ago
If you can find a jurisdiction without the explicit concept of the public domain and judges and lawyers that think there is no implicit concept of the public domain and someone who can claim copyright with a straight face to code that explicitly states that the authors relinquish their claim, then I still suspect it would get thrown out of court and the claimant opening themselves to charges of criminal fraud (entrapment and extortion) or abusing the justice system for profit.
tgsovlerkhgsel|4 years ago
Offering this "service" seems like a great way to monetize your software, because it only hits those with overcautious legal departments that really don't care about the money, and everyone is happy: Legal gets their paperwork, company pays some amount that they don't care about, author gets money, engineers get to use it, everyone else who doesn't have a paranoid legal department gets to use it without any hurdles.
I'm pretty sure the author got sick of getting (from his perspective stupid) requests "hey you already said it's free but can you give that to us in writing, our lawyers won't let us use it otherwise" so he turned bureaucracy into money.
Edit: It's also a convenient way for companies to support the project with money. Very few companies have a "donate to this open source project" process, most have a "buy this software" process, so a company where the people using SQLite would like the company to pay for it now has a convenient way to do so.
jll29|4 years ago
Thanks for the blessings and the beautiful code; you really can be a poet in any language.
hprotagonist|4 years ago
pmcollins|4 years ago
leros|4 years ago
yreg|4 years ago
themodelplumber|4 years ago
For example, what is good? A lot of people share concepts of what is good, but a lot of people really don't. Not because they're bad people, but because life circumstances typically go way deeper than good and evil, for instance. So--what is the author saying, really?
Subjective stuff like this isn't bad, but it does really lead directly into the deeper questions.
Also, how does one determine whether they've taken more than they've given? A lot of people are going to bring subjective past impressions into this determination, which, like good & bad above, are complex enough that you can make that take-or-give-o-meter read just about anything--and again, justify--just about anything.
So on the one hand, it's nice that it's framed as a generous blessing, and good lord does it cut right through all that stupid legal bull! And on the other hand, people who place boring, obtuse, business law terminology where this project has placed a blessing have really good reasons for doing so, as such efforts, which get at objective use cases and expectations, have helped to remediate a lot of damage done by a bit too much subjectivity and projection of expectations in our communications.
(Bless me father, for I have clause'd)
Georgelemental|4 years ago
I doubt this interpretation, given SQLite's Code of Ethics (https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html). Abrahamic faiths and subjective ethics don't go well together; "I am the way, the truth, and the life" doesn't leave much room for alternatives.
bee_rider|4 years ago
Anyway, I think structuring it as a blessing means that it doesn't tell us much about the author's view of ethics. Which is to say, it is so clearly just a reminder to the reader that they should be their best self, that it couldn't possibly be misinterpreted as the actual, objective legal requirements. So, those must be somewhere else, right?
ars|4 years ago
IBM had the same problem, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866 for the solution :)
graderjs|4 years ago
From a way more zany far out and perhaps metaphysical perspective I mean God if he she or they exists really is the ultimate programmer crafting whole realities. Maybe there is an inherent spiritual connection in code? Even if it's just analogical
the_only_law|4 years ago
He was a very intelligent individual who’s life was ruined by mental illness. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
timClicks|4 years ago
sydthrowaway|4 years ago
Make it happen.
cmacleod4|4 years ago
hprotagonist|4 years ago
ltbarcly3|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
nocluuwhat|4 years ago
dt3ft|4 years ago
See the actual license here: https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Georgelemental|4 years ago
randerson|4 years ago
collegeburner|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]