Doubts regarding the GPLv(2,3) compatibility of libpcap

[Joerg Mayer <jmayer@loplof.de>]

Hello List,

I've some doubts whether it is OK to distribute binaries of GPL programs
linked against libpcap. Being one of the Wireshark (nee Ethereal)
authors that's something I'd like to hear some (hopefully well founded)
opinions on.

While the main license file says it's 3 clause BSD, some of the files
are covered (inside) with a 4 clause bsd license. Some of these files
are covered by the 4-clause license from the University of california,
who waived the 4th clause some years ago but some files contain the
following text:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 * Copyright (c) 1997 Yen Yen Lim and North Dakota State University
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
 * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
 *    must display the following acknowledgement:
 *      This product includes software developed by Yen Yen Lim and
        North Dakota State University
 * 4. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
 *    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
 *
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
 * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
 * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
 * DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,
 * INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
 * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
 * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
 * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
 * STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
 * ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
 * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

And I can't find anything indicating that they waived the 4th clause.
If that 4th clause is still valid, wouldn't the whole lib be covered
effectively by the 4 clause license in the end?

Thanks
         Joerg
-- 
Joerg Mayer                                           <jmayer@loplof.de>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.