Its only wrong if you are coming from the GNU side, for everyone else its perfectly viable. The fact there is such a big debate what is the right way to refer to Linux is proof enough to me that there is no wrong/right way, its just the GNU folks spitting their dummies out because want the recognition for making Linux what it is today. I'm not saying they do not deserve that recognition, but if its at the cost of confusing the end-users and as such stifling the use of Linux by novices, they are just hurting themselves in the long run.

By their logic Ubuntu is GNU/Linux but Maemo or DD-WRT is not, because they are using BusyBox and so the core OS may not be using GNU at all. Exactly how much GNU codebase do we need to be running to call it GNU/Linux? What should we call Maemo and DD-WRT? By branding them all as Linux you get the point across, that they are for all intents are purposes the same tools, even if the underlying code might be from different sources. The end user doesn't need to know if they are using GNU coreutils or not and in fact it just confuses them. Do we really want to get back to the confusion of the DOS ages? That won't help anyone.

I mean just think, its perfectly possible to start off with a none-GNU Linux (is Maemo an example of this?) and then turn it into GNU/Linux by installing the GNU coreutils, etc. That is just plain confusing and should not mean you suddenly have to refer to your distribution differently unless its specifically relevant to a problem you are having. If that is the "right" way to do things, I am happy to be doing it wrong.