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.
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.
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.
