In the situation discussed in the parent article, the FSF advocates removing the positive freedom to upgrade software, while (at least in the FSF's eyes, using the argument that circuitry can be overlooked) increasing negative liberty. So this is an example where they are not the same thing, which is why it seems like a useful distinction to make. However, I welcome your attempt to provide a different explanation, which looks promising even if incomplete (see below).
> The point is to have whatever freedoms are necessary to live in a society where everyone can and be friendly and helpful to each other and can make use of their skills to improve their quality of life.
[Was there text missing between "can and", or is the "and" spurious?]
The first of those seems connected with negative liberty. The second (improving quality of life) seems more connected with positive liberty, but might be seen as being in conflict with the recommendation to prevent people from improving their quality of life by upgrading software.