I always find this sort of argument in the name of freedom interesting and perhaps a bit disingenuous. The GNU activists (for lack of a better generalization) actually do not argue for more freedom of choice, but rather only for who should have that freedom: whether freedom of choice rightfully belongs to the developer or the user, the producer or the consumer. By arguing chiefly for "greater freedom" they avoid the issue of why they consider the producer of a product as deserving a lesser moral latitude than a consumer of the product; their appeal becomes not a rational appeal for why, on moral grounds, a developer should be less free and instead make an emotional appeal to the users that they are entitled to the product as a moral imperative. It seems to me, the GNU activist is not making an argument about freedom whatever, but is essentially arguing for an application of altruism to the world of software development.
I think the author of the article makes that alternative intent of the movement clear in that they are uncomfortable with the freedom actually offered by GNU licenses. If even as a user of GNU software you somehow can perceived as helping a non-Libre developer (no matter how indirectly) you are condemnable morally by the reckoning of the author. I find this consistent with my assertion that the argument is not one of greater freedom, but philosophically an altruistic one.