The BSL was written with international consideration in mind. And most of the long language you see in other licenses was deemed superfluous as it was already covered by various international treaties and accords. Obviously, IANAL, but that is my recollection from the various discussions and legal team at the time of the BSL.
With respect, the aversion to Boost code by corporate legal teams is very well known here. Both in the US and outside.
reference please
You can search this list's archives for many tales of woe when trying to get Legal in a multinational to approve usage of Boost. I'm not saying it's all due to the Licence, there are other causes. But lawyers like detail, and the BSL lacks clarity. The biggest objection I always heard from Legal(s) was patent threat, and the BSL says absolutely zero about patents. You may notice all the v2.0 revisions of major open source licences do now say something about patents. That's why. If the steering committee might be thinking of fixing the BSL, better to adopt the Apache 2.0 licence https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html. It has 25% of the open source market according to Wikipedia, and it's very well recognised by Legal, unlike the Boost licence. It isn't ideal for European jurisdictions, but it is widely recognised here too. They know how to deal with it upon sight, so in that sense it greatly improves on the BSL. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/