This is an interesting point. It would seem from Celetti's book (kindly lent to me by Ca' Berta) that Salmaso was an employee of the Sgaravatti company. If that is the case and if he created this rose implementing the company's breeding programme, it would seem logical to assign the rose to Sgaravatti (which Sgaravatti is another matter).
In the case of Massimiliano Lodi (about whom Ca' Berta knows more than I do) there is a good case for referring to his varieties as Bonfiglioli/Lodi as he didn't work for Bonfiglioli but marketed his roses through that company (it would be interesting to see a contract, if indeed there was one). The same is true for Albert Norman, a diamond cutter by trade, whose immensely successful 'Ena Harkness' and 'Frensham' were introduced by Harkness and are thought of as Harkness roses.
Ca' Berta and I are socialists - what! politics in the rose world! - and we are always keen to identify the "active breeder" rather than his or her employer who in many cases may not have given much of input. That is why we have tried to identify Ludovico Cazzaniga as the breeder at Fratelli Ingegnoli and tried - in vain - to unravel the mystery of which Barni bred which rose.
Obviously the current convention is to ignore the employee and only acknowledge the company. To some extent this convention simply reflects the conservative views that dominate in horticultural circles. To abandon this convention at this point, however, would create enormous inconsistencies and so I am against doing it, but, at the same time, would encourage researchers to try to identify the unsung heroes of the plant world rather than thoughtlessly glorifying company names.