I believe it is more correct to say Apache 2.0 does not meet Boost requirements to the license in that it is more restrictive than the BSL. In particular, BSL has no requirements similar to those in Apache 2.0 [1] Section 4 item b.
It is correct that Apache 2.0 licence imposes more requirements. That's its merit over the BSL.
Also, unlike BSL, Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPLv2, only GPLv3, which is not as popular.
Correct.
The boilerplate comment that is recommended to be used to apply the license, and the license itself, are significantly longer than those of BSL. I'll remind that this thread has started from someone having difficulty reading and understanding the BSL, and Apache 2.0 is not likely to improve on that.
You are allowed to, and indeed encouraged to, provide just a URL to the licence text. Besides, Apache 2.0 is a very popular and well understood licence. You don't need a large boilerplate, unlike the relatively unknown BSL. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/