Sort of, but the main difference is to what extent are you supporting killing and suffering and whether you have a choice.
The question of social responsibility of programmers (and other professionals) is not an easy one, and I think every programmer should think hard and often about the politics of their work.
Many programmers often dismiss such questions by saying that code in itself isn't moral or amoral, but what is done with it. But when you think more about it, it's just an easy excuse so that they can get on with their lives with a clear conscience.
How do you participate in civilization without being indirectly responsible for its negatives? The only paths I see are to either opt out or accept the downsides while working to improve things.
The second is the most sensible option. I'm not saying people should stop using Linux, I'm just saying that programmers should be more aware of the politics of their work (professional work is almost never apolitical) and strive to actually use their skills and talent to make the world a better place.
There's also a big difference between buying some gum and having the tax you paid on it go to the military vs. actively developing military drones. I'd say that contributing to Linux would fall somewhere in between these two.
So let's purposely write bugs in FLOSS because all of it can be used for evil. For well written comments of the sort you write they can't be any more insulting. This deserves an explanation so let me put it this way: I appreciate that you're voicing your concern but these kind of ideas are detrimental to progress and the prose by which you convey them is orthogonal to my comfort zone. For instance: the guy whose job is to design a military-grade drone is arguably making the world a safer place then the guy whose job is to implement new features in Linux, depending on how they're used. Yet somehow you're biased to assume the worst, which strikes me as a bit naive. Programmers shouldn't be more aware of anything, especially not politics. That's just distracting and unproductive. You choose not to contribute, fine. But it doesn't make you morally superior either way. The constraints you've set for yourself are entirely arbitrary, much like theists construe their own set of restrictions for religious reasons.
It's hard to follow to the natural conclusion. Should we stop using SELinux because the NSA is part of the same government? Should we stop buying servers and other hardware because the fuel bought to deliver it supports violent oil-supplying regimes?
We have to function to have any hope of improving the situation. That does mean supporting at some level the thing we hope to fix.
