What does HackerNews think of libsql?
libSQL is a fork of SQLite that is both Open Source, and Open Contributions.
To summarize, instead of using one of the OSS licenses, the copyright holders simply declare the source to be in the public domain. In order to preserve that status they don't accept patches unless you submit some signed document that you agree with that.
To make things more complicated, they also use their a relatively niche version management system instead of git. Which would complicate making contributions (if they accepted them).
There's a popular fork that fixes all of these issues: https://github.com/libsql/libsql It is MIT licensed, on Github, and open for contributions.
Kind of a weird legal situation for a popular project like this that so many people depend on to have. Not judging; but it is odd. Seems like a lot of wasted efforts between users, would be contributors, and the people that forked this thing to address all that.
> Could SQLite be embedded in the Linux kernel?
Choosing to license the fork under Apache-2.0 ensures that this will not happen (via this fork, at least), as the license is considered incompatible with the kernel's GPL-2.0-only license.
The way they're going about this fork (described in the repo [0] readme) seems healthy enough for both projects as well.
Maybe the biggest challenge though is recreating SQLite's private/proprietary test suite [1].