If copyright weren't a problem, I'd suggest the Apache 2.0 licence which gives stronger guarantees to the end user (a Boost library doesn't actually have to have the Boost licence, it's just strongly recommended). But you don't own the copyright to the entire library.
The library only has NumScale copyright notices, so they claim ownership of the library, and could re-license it.
They could relicence *subsequent editions* of it, but not any already released edition. Just the same as Oracle made subsequent editions of ZFS proprietary, but could not retract the licence for already released editions.
AFAIK the Boost Software License requires keeping the copyright notices of any work it is derived from, so this is a violation of the BSL. Boost.SIMD is derived from the NT2 library which was a BSL-licensed collaboration between various parties.
I warned NumScale about this a few years ago, but they dismissed it.
It would be highly common for a software startup being spun out of a university to have the ownership of any relevant IP held by the university transferred or sold to it. Because the startup owns the copyright, and is not a licensee, it can do anything it likes with the copyrighted IP, including deleting any text such as prior copyright notices. You only need preserve licence notices where the licence you are placed under demands it because you don't own the IP and can't do whatever you want. Now, as to whether misrepresenting the provenance of software is moral or not is another question, but if you own the IP, it's legal. And it is certainly common in the industry, one contract I had with a household name multinational had me convert a third party software library over to eliminate all evidence of its true origin. They had bought a full owning copy from the IP originators, which is also possible BTW, but now it was theirs it laboriously needed to be made to look so. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/