Andrey Semashev wrote:
I think Peter made a very good point that these "Boost.Test contributors" has to be a legal entity, ...
No, I'm not saying that. It's reasonable to interpret "Boost.Test contributors" as a shorthand for a list of specific names who don't need to constitute a legal entity. It's basically a 'pointer' to the actual list of contributors that is presumably available on demand.
This reminds me. Recently I updated README.md in a few libraries I work on to include a notice that patch contributors implicitly agree to release their modifications under BSL [1][2][3]. Should these notes be added to all libraries or even on the main website or am I being paranoid?
I tend towards "paranoid", but this is the sort of question which lawyers find "fascinating" in the "I'd be very interested to see that tested in court" way. :-) That's because this notice protects against the hypothetical situation in which someone contributes a patch and then later sues us for illegal distribution, pretending not to have known that his changes would have been distributed under the terms of the BSL. I consider this position somewhat unlikely to prevail. But again, I'm no lawyer. Lawyers like disclaimers.