First, I'm not sure what we're talking about anyway, as I'm running some sid binaries on my N800 right now -- we have binary compatibility.
Yeah, Nokia is a company. And we all know companies like to waste money hiring their own programmers to do what the OS community is doing anyhow, just so they can... umm... so they can do what?
What do they gain by keeping binary incompatibility (if they had it)? I really don't see anything.

Your whole claim that this is not a "true linux" is ridiculous.
If you mean that all software should be OS licensed, say so.
If you mean that it should come with a distribution managed and distributed by someone independent of Nokia, say so.
If you mean that it should be binary-compatible with some arch of some other distribution subject to some selection criteria (as your succeeding comments imply), say so. (Saying what selection criteria you use would scarce be amiss, too.) Or better still, notice that it is, and say nothing at all.

But when you say "true linux", the only meaning those words bear is that it runs the Linux kernel, which it undeniably does.

Lardman was polite enough to try to guess a rational complaint you could have meant, rather than simply pointing out how ridiculous your assertion was. His guess was apparently wrong, so could you please explain what you're trying to say?