The definition of political is irrelevant. The result is supertrue. "If even one example of software is not political, then 'all software is political' is false" is true under all admissible values of "political." This is simple logic.
All assertoric claims about the world are either true or false. If they are false they should be rejected. If they are true they should be spoken. Treating factual claims about the world as a partisan psychological litmus test is, in my judgment, morally repugnant. There are four lights.
Or your definition of political might be different to the speakers.
Or it could be intended to highlight a way of perceiving the world and thus not be subject to truth claims.
Etc. This list can be extended indefinitely.
Language is not a game of symbol manipulation.