If the founders did not want their new music form classified in any way then perhaps their first mistake was to accept a label of any sort.
Well, maybe, but what should they have done in order not to be labelled? Fight the society, start a legal fight against music journalists? Like, when i was asked whether i am a punk or a hippie, i answered, "I'm Sheena" (which, in some way, is a label by itself, but i've never seen anybody who'd live without a name of any kind), but i cannot forbid other people to call me whatever they decided for themselves i am.
Well, try to compare punk and metal as far as sub-genres go. There are quite a few sub-genres of metal, and how many sub-genres of punk could you name? Or take a "style" named "swamp rock". How many swamp rockers do you know?
Punk has a message, it's related to a certain attitude and vision and a broad yet distinctive — by some elements — sound. Short, loud, fast, simple, as well as rock'n'roll and based on it, but wilder, intentionally anti-establishment. Which doesn't mean it cannot embrace elements of other styles — no music form can develop in vacuum. As far as the name is concerned — well, people tend to give a name to something that already exists but isn't defined yet, that's very human. Put in a box, attach a label, and when it's finally classified, they feel fine and comfortable, and the world becomes understandable and explained. (And the broader is the classification, the fatter encyclopaedias become, and the more money their authors get for writing them.)
Personally, i don't really care about name. You may call it "rotten cheeze" or whatever, or not call anything at all — i, for one, wouldn't mind. You may even tell me it doesn't exist.