I sense it is unlikely that we would get a definitive legal opinion, even after paying money, for a
Paul A Bristow wrote: license detail that is clearly ill-defined. I agree. The proper role of our legal representative - if we had one - in this case would not be to provide us with legal advice, but to contact the legal representative of the Unicode Consortium, explain the situation (Boost does not allow libraries that impose an attribution requirement for binaries, which on its face precludes us ever having a Unicode library), ask them to maybe consider dropping that requirement from their license, failing that, ask them for an explicit permission for Boost libraries to use their data files without such a license requirement, failing that, ask them for a clear and an official statement that they do stand by this license requirement. (In the last case all we can do is write a few angry blog posts, tweet them and link them on Reddit.)