It's not obvious to me. OSI (as per link in parent comment) says it's not "open source", and the LICENSE.md contains a prohibition on using it for evil https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/LICENSE.md
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.
I will concede that the exhortation against use for evil in the license text is probably not legally binding.
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.
> 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.
No it doesn’t and now I feel like you’re trying to waste my time on purpose. It contains a “blessing” exhorting (i.e., requesting) people not to do evil, not a “prohibition” of any kind.