#1: GNU projects are not all under GPLv2 or GPLV3. Some are under X11, LGPL, and even perl license (for a non-complete list, see http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/GNU).
#2: GNU only have recommendations for GNU projects regarding licensing (posted at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html). In it, AGPL is the license of choice for software that interacts with its users over a network, but it is only a recommendation. Project leaders and project communities are the ones who decide.
#3: News articles rarely mention license in the title, except when the linked website is titled as such. Do we really need to title every software article by its license?
How is the title ambiguous? GNU in this case refers to the organization and not the license and is part of the project's proper name. In the same way that the "Mozilla" in Mozilla Firefox refers to the Mozilla foundation and not the MPL (in fact, Firefox is tri-licensed MPL-GPL-LGPL).
#2: GNU only have recommendations for GNU projects regarding licensing (posted at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html). In it, AGPL is the license of choice for software that interacts with its users over a network, but it is only a recommendation. Project leaders and project communities are the ones who decide.
#3: News articles rarely mention license in the title, except when the linked website is titled as such. Do we really need to title every software article by its license?