[elehack]

GNU License ≠ GNU Project. Yes, (almost) all GNU software (as in projects of the GNU Project) are released under the GPL. So is a lot of other software.

GNU Foo is, branding-wise, just like Microsoft Word, Google Drive, or Apple Macintosh.

[ryan-thompson]

Okay, so brand fail. I've using linux since my first lead dev introduced me to it back in '97-98, and it used to take a weekend to get set up right, and the only help on the newsgroups or BBS's was to RTFM. So maybe the brand could work for others, but I have not seen any really positive images of the brand. Ugly Gnu ink mascot, Restrictive GPL Licence that is less about sharing and more about control, Richard Stallman unable to give it a rest. The brand isn't a good one.

[belorn]

Since you are new, I will give you some benefit of doubt and provide a portion of the Hacker news guidelines:

"Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." - http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If you feel that a license that says "Full permission, so long you do not restrict other users of the program" as more about control and less about sharing, then keep that to you self. There is nothing genuinely new about in such discussion, and frankly, it just tiresome to read, comment and down vote. Note that the down vote is not because I 100% completely disagree with your comment, but because your comment will just cause a rehash of an flame war which is old enough to start investing in its own pension plan.

[xmrsilentx]

It would only constitute a flamewar topic if he were advocating an alternative to GNU.

[SwellJoe]

Quote: "Restrictive GPL Licence that is less about sharing and more about control"

If that aint an old flamewar statement, I don't know what is. Everybody here knows what the alternative is (BSD, and BSD-like licenses). We weren't born yesterday and we're nerdy enough to know what is being argued for.