I read the comment as giving Stallman credit for the Linux kernel. Now that I'm reading it again, it could be that or they could be correctly setting it apart and giving Stallman credit for the rest. I'm not sure which it is. If it's the latter, then my original critique is incorrect.
If it is the latter, it's unfair to lots of people who are not the FSF. This is the problem I have with those who are intent on calling Linux GNU/Linux. Yes, GNU deserves credit for lots of nice code they've written, but by including them in the name as some demand, it does two things that I see as harmful. The first is that it implies that GNU code is required for a Linux system that respects user freedoms. This is not true. Almost all the most popular and required GNU programs have non-GNU alternatives. There are alternatives for libc, GCC, the core utils, and quite a few other things.
The second problem is that plenty of other projects deserve some credit and don't get it when GNU and Linux are listed as if they're the most important. Most running Linux installations, desktop or server, have lots of software written by people who are neither the Linux foundation nor GNU. If the name of the system has to list all the important players, then it will be a very long name. KDE/Mozilla/Python/TDF/ApacheFoundation/Apple*/GNU/RedHat/Linux describes a basic desktop distro before the user installs anything, and there are undoubtedly plenty of others who deserve membership in the list but I stopped listing them. Not that it diminishes the real contributions made by the GNU project and the FSF, but such statements are often a lot more limited than they should be for honesty.
*Apple, in the Linux company list? Yes. Several important components rely on Apple-maintained components. They include CUPS for printing, OpenCL, LLVM and Clang, etc. One could list each project by its independent name, but so the name fits in this comment box, I'm recommending we don't just glob together all the installed package names.