Free Software is good but on its own isn't enough.
When you look at the definition of Free Software you will notice how it is very programmer centric in its sense of freedom.
Those who can't program and don't have the time to acquire the skill are directly excluded from most of the freedom we associate with Free Software.
The only freedom they have is to run a free program and redistribute it without restriction.
If your software could be useful to non-technical people, make sure they still have access to the participatory part of Software Freedom.
Write accessible documentation.
Provide ways for non-technical people to contribute to your project.
And most importantly: Listen to the feedback of non-technical users equally, if not more than that of technical people.
@hay this is what the 3rd and 4th "freedoms" are about, if I want some software I have to be different, the 3rd and 4th freedoms allow me to give it to someone else, and for them to give the altered version back to me.
I agree that inclusive communities are important, but I wouldn't say not programming "directly excludes" anyone. Most people I think get the most out of free software just by using and sharing it, even if they can program.
These freedoms are necessary, but not sufficient, for the public good in a world with computers in it.
But just as there are some who don't write code, there are some who do write code who don't have other skills and aptitudes.
It seems to me rude in either direction to demand from someone something they are not prepared to offer.
On the other hand, it seems graceful to receive a gift and to offer a complementary one in return.