A licence which understands that there is a legal world outside the United States of America and it is not the same needs to be longer.
Many would find the Boost licence insufficiently specified to give clarity and lack of ambiguity.
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. The superfluous wording you mention is highly important because those international treaties were not equally enacted in each country. For example, the US only recognises moral copyright to visual artistry alone. Most of Europe applied that treaty to everything. China has another application again. You need wording to indicate which enactment applies, else it is whatever formulation applies in the court in question rather than what the licensor intended. I think the BSL was up to par *at the time it was written* as compared to other software licences at that time. But the world has moved on. Most open source orgs have released a v2.0 of their licences to reflect the modern climate, and to reassure those corporate legal teams so the software is less objectionable. Apache v2.0 licence is an excellent example of a refresh to solve such worries. Meanwhile the BSL remains firmly locked in the past. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/