dmd Backend converted to Boost License

[Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 04/07/2017 05:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> 2. It's on all of the "Accepted OSS Licenses" lists that major corps have
>> because of Boost itself being used in those companies. If your license
>> isn't on
>> the list, your project isn't being used.
>
> Yup. We figured every corporation that uses C++ has accepted Boost, so
> this would be a no-brainer for them to accept D's license.
>

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?