[Digital-Citizen]

> A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed. > Stallman cannot really make any such demands.

That those programs are licensed under one of the BSD licenses doesn't have anything to do with Stallman's use of the term "GNU/Linux" and recommendation that others join him in using the term "GNU/Linux". This is not a "demand" as you claim. Stallman explains his position in brief in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux , at length in https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html and there's a FAQ as well.

In fact the specific point you raise has been raised before and is addressed quite well across multiple questions in the FSF's FAQ on the term GNU/Linux:

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#others -- Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially?

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#distronames0 -- My distro's developers call it “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever they like?

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd -- Should we say “GNU/BSD” too?

For a while Debian has distributed multiple systems where GNU was the predominant OS atop other kernels--GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/Hurd. It helps people understand the major components involved by naming things according to what they are. Such naming is also fair to those who ask for a share of the credit for their major contribution to the overall work, as the GNU Project asks people to give them a share of the credit for their major contribution.