dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 4/8/2017 1:19 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> Anyone "in the know" have a any "inside scoop" regarding the such organization's
> perspective on the "zlib/libpng" license? I tend to favor it for my own OSS
> projects, since it's (in my perspective) at least as liberal as Boost, but very,
> very, ultra-easy to read/understand even for an everyday layman. But I would
> love to hear from anyone with more in-the-trenches experience how realistic that
> really plays out in the "real world".
>
> I wonder if maybe it would be worth my while to dual-license my OSS dlang
> projects under both Boost and zlib/libpng. Anyone with real-world expertise in
> the area have any ("number five alive!") eeeenput?

I'm no lawyer and have no idea and you should ask a real lawyer for real legal 
advice. But it stands to reason that the more widely used a license is, the more 
likely a corporate lawyer is familiar with it and has already approved it for 
use in the corporation. So why not just use Boost and be done with it?