@nprofile1q...
You are supporting proprietary software.
For example, software can be perfectly free but not distributed publicly and only directly to specific people and organizations. They're supporting limiting the access to FOSS, not the freedom itself.
It's more about trying to explicitly grant free software rights to people who fall within a friend/enemy distinction.
I get your point that customers/non-customers seeming like not that much of a leap but it's more than that.
The root contention is the idea that if Free Software itself is not sufficient to stop genocide/fascism/capitalism means that it is flawed and should be 'improved'.
You are supporting proprietary software.
For example, software can be perfectly free but not distributed publicly and only directly to specific people and organizations. They're supporting limiting the access to FOSS, not the freedom itself.
It's more about trying to explicitly grant free software rights to people who fall within a friend/enemy distinction.
I get your point that customers/non-customers seeming like not that much of a leap but it's more than that.
The root contention is the idea that if Free Software itself is not sufficient to stop genocide/fascism/capitalism means that it is flawed and should be 'improved'.