I don't mind that; sure, there are other RDBMS servers that support SQL as their main or exclusive language, but unless you are talking about ancient Sybase products (for which there is a very good reason for the shared branding) “SQL Server” is a clear, exclusive Microsoft product identity and not any worse of a label, say, FTP (yes, there are other file transfer protocols).
OTOH,what does bug me is when people say “SQL” to mean “Microsoft SQL Server”.
Same as "FTP Server" doesn't mean proftpd, "HTTP Server" doesn't mean apache and "C compiler" doesn't mean gcc. SQL is a language. Server is a generic term.
Another example: I may ask my colleague the following: "Which SQL server should we use in our new project?". Does this mean, i would like to know the edition and version of the MS SQL Server or maybe (and from my point of view more likely) i am looking for PostgreSQL, MySQL or MSSQL. If i'd like to know which edition and version i should use, i'd ask "Which MS SQL Server should i use?". That's a difference.
Might be that our views differ but i can understand the parents points.
It also helps that nobody says "The SQL server is down" when their mysql instance is down. Even when using a generic term it's "the database is down"
