D library projects : adopting Boost license

[Don]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>> 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 think you make a very good point.

I think the GNU stuff is a bit different, because the GPL is an 
aggressive license -- the FSF intends to defend the license, taking 
offenders to court. Legal battles are expected, and having a single 
legal entity makes it easier to win the case.
By contrast, the Boost license exists solely for the benefit of the 
users, giving them a guarantee that court cases will _not_ occur.
I think that throughout Boost all of the authors retain their original 
copyright.