Why even go the route of narrowly defining the term just to say “I’m not that”? It just makes the argument literally untrue even though the underlying points are correct and important.
Okay, let's look at it from a different perspective.
What obligation do I, a person developing FOSS in my free time without compensation, have to a consumer of that software (and especially to a consumer who is likely making money in part due to their use of the software I wrote)?
Absolutely nothing. They have no obligations at all, just like any supplier who provides something as-is. And I agree with the author of the post that it's wrong and unjust for people to think otherwise.
But so what? That does not change the fact that a person developing FOSS supplies something—in fact in most cases they supply a ton of value.
For an analogy, if one of inputs of your business uses trash of others (e.g. for recycling), then the people throwing out this trash are effectively your suppliers and the ones you must consider in your supply chain, because no matter if you have a business relationship with them or not, they do matter in your supply chain, so you have to treat them (and risks related to them) the same as all other suppliers.
Your supply chain involves everything you use and rely upon, no matter if its provided by a business relationship, taken out of the ground, provided by the government, made in-house, or found in outer space.
The word “supplier” has multiple meanings. The meaning in this case is derived from the context of the article. In a business context:
“A supplier in a business is someone who acts as an intermediary between the manufacturer and retailer, ensuring that communication is forthcoming and stock is of sufficient quality.”
This being a business relationship and not an intramural frisbee team implies contracts and money changing hands, does it not?
> “A supplier in a business is someone who acts as an intermediary between the manufacturer and retailer, ensuring that communication is forthcoming and stock is of sufficient quality.”
That’s not the definition used in the article at all.
