I take exception to the term "unfair" here. It's an incredibly ambiguous term, and he seems to be using it to mean "added features that aren't really open source, which allow people to make money off of their work." In what world is this unfair? He then goes on to say how the open source guys have taken open projects with closed components (web service based? Not familiar with the examples given) and made them purely open. After reading the whole thing, I can't help but feel like I missed the point; is he for this sort of thing (seems unlikely, since he's using the term "unfair"), against it, or trying to make some sort of argument in the middle?
He's pointing out that you can't make money providing something that isn't scarce. So, because lack of scarcity is a good thing, we want to see more kinds of businesses that work by bundling a little bit of scarce stuff with a lot of non-scarce stuff. Such as for example this "open core" stuff and what Red hat does, but we also need some new ways just for variety.
Even if it were true, last I checked a lot of industries receive "unfair" advantages in the form of government subsidies.