D library projects : adopting Boost license

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Yigal Chripun (yigal100 at gmail.com)'s article
> On 13/11/2009 20:51, Walter Bright wrote:
> > Yigal Chripun wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > On dsource you wrote: "The current situation requires to get an explicit
> > permission to change the license from each contributor for his code and
> > if someone cannot be contacted for any reason, his contribution cannot
> > be re-licensed."
> >
> > That's a big problem. The only solution I can see is to relicense with
> > the Boost license whatever you can of Tango. We faced the same issue
> > with Phobos, and we're just going to dump what cannot be relicensed.
> This is very important IMO, probably as important as the license itself.
> This is exactly why the GNU project rejects contributions even if they
> are licensed under the GPL unless the the contributer agrees to give
> ownership of the copyright to the FSF (the legal entity for the GNU
> project).
> Almost all open source projects do the same. a notable exception is the
> linux kernel and I think this influenced the decision to not upgrade to
> GPL3.
> Does that mean that all of Phobos is under one legal entity - Digital
> Mars I presume? If not, than it really should be and you should require
> the same policy for future contributions.
> I don't want to see each module licensed under a different person
> (Andrei, Sean, You, etc..).

I personally would have a hard time giving the copyright up for stuff that I
worked on without pay.  I don't mind licensing it permissively, but the idea that
it's even possible (even if it's not likely) for someone to prevent me from
relicensing subsequent versions own code under whatever terms I want bothers me.
For example, let's say that (hypothetically, not that this has any chance of
happening) that Digital Mars switched to GPL for Phobos.  If I had given them the
copyright to my code, I wouldn't be able to keep the stuff I wrote permissively
licensed.