This may be seen as advantageous however.
I'm curious about the "citizens cannot revoke their human rights and as such cannot put things into public domain" part of your comment. How does putting something into public domain revoke anything regarding your human rights?
Hence you must explicitly licence to allow reuse.
It's why personally if I want something as free as possible I dual licence under Unlicense and MIT with the user able to take whichever suits them best.
Any legal risk, and Hwaci can avoid employing people from problematic jurisdictions (from their POV). I suspect there is a workaround anyway: Hwaci can require any German developers to assign copyright of code to Hwaci, and then Hwaci can put that code into the public domain.
Regardless, Hwaci mention that SQLite is “Open-Source, not Open-Contribution” and also say “the project does not accept patches. If you would like to suggest a change and you include a patch as a proof-of-concept, that would be great. However, please do not be offended if we rewrite your patch from scratch.”.
I do not find this argument very persuasive. Other aspects and of IP law and of licensing related law are different in different countries too.
If I find some software purportedly from a developer in Wheretheheckisthatistan that says it is under some OSI-approved license all that tells me is that the developer (probably) tried to license it under that license. But I have no idea if they actually succeeded in doing so--for instance maybe their employment agreement for their day job says it belongs to the employer and they are in a country where such agreements are enforceable.