I'm currently strongly considering placing Outcome and all my Boost like libraries under the EUPL licence. It far better matches the "Licence requirements" at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html than the Boost licence does.
A license that is 7 A4 pages doesn't look like one that is "simple to read and understand".
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.
Also, from a cursory look, it doesn't seem to require to retain copyright notices and the license in redistributed source code. There may be other significant differences, which is difficult to learn quickly because of that license volume and language.
I don't know what you're on about here. The language is very simple. Much clearer than say the GPL. And the clause you didn't find is on page 3: "Attribution right: the Licensee shall keep intact all copyright, patent or trademarks notices and all notices that refer to the Licence and to the disclaimer of warranties. The Licensee must include a copy of such notices and a copy of the Licence with every copy of the Work he/she distributes and/or communicates." Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/