Hello, boost/interprocess/containers/container/vector.hpp contains the following in the license header (directly underneath the BSL header): ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // This file comes from SGI's stl_vector.h file. Modified by Ion Gaztanaga. // Renaming, isolating and porting to generic algorithms. Pointer typedef // set to allocator::pointer to allow placing it in shared memory. // /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Copyright (c) 1994 // Hewlett-Packard Company // // Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software // and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, // provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and // that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear // in supporting documentation. Hewlett-Packard Company makes no // representations about the suitability of this software for any // purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. [ With a similar license statement under the SGI copyright ] In my view, one of the strengths of the BSL is that it specifically does not require notice in "supporting documentation." It is possible that this portion of the license is no longer in effect, since the header on the STLport vector header now reads: * Copyright (c) 1994 * Hewlett-Packard Company * * Copyright (c) 1996,1997 * Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. * * Copyright (c) 1997 * Moscow Center for SPARC Technology * * Copyright (c) 1999 * Boris Fomitchev * * This material is provided "as is", with absolutely no warranty expressed * or implied. Any use is at your own risk. * * Permission to use or copy this software for any purpose is hereby granted * without fee, provided the above notices are retained on all copies. * Permission to modify the code and to distribute modified code is granted, * provided the above notices are retained, and a notice that the code was * modified is included with the above copyright notice. And in this case, perhaps the affected files can be updated to reflect the less-onerous STLport license. Otherwise, the files could be replaced with STLport-derived files, or HP and SGI could be asked to provide permission. Any opinions? Thanks again, Hal