bsd, gpl "compatability"

[wala]

The FSF lists the Revised BSD License as a compatible with the GPL. The Linux kernel and other GPL'd projects contain a sizable amount of BSD Licensed code, but what is their rationale for dealing with the BSD clause that states that redistributions
"must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer", especially when in binary form? Is it because the GPL requires that the corresponding source be available, which is where the BSD license for that particular code exists?

Also, is section 3 ("the name of the author...") of the BSD License compatible with the GPL?

[Cabhan]

I'm very confused on your question. The BSD is an open-source license that allows for a bit more freedom than the GPL in that ANYONE can reuse the code and does not have to redistribute it open-source. However, code released under the BSD licenses _are_ open-source.

The only section of the BSD license that has ever been incompatible with the GPL was the third clause of the original license that stated:

* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
*    must display the following acknowledgement:
*      This product includes software developed by the University of
*      California, Berkeley and its contributors.

This clause was removed from the official license in 1999, and most BSD distributions have eliminated it as well.

[wala]

I am aware of that.
I mean to ask, how is it that the terms of the BSD license are satisfied when you release BSD licensed code under the GPL?
The GPL also says that

You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

How is clause 3 of the revised BSD license compatible then?