Honest question: isn't this a fundamental contradiction? If you are building a thing that by definition is given freely to anyone who wants to use it, how does compensation for that work become part of the formula? You can't be monetarily compensated for it, because you chose to give it away. There are other forms of compensation but that seems clearly not what we're talking about here. The author goes on to ask how you can build a business around open source? But isn't the answer that you can't? If its really open source then the software itself is not a business.
That, to me, seems consistent with the original idea of open source: that it was the cool things you could build with code, not the code itself, that had value. None of the iconic success stories in tech over the last decade have sold code, have they? They've built things on FOSS code that never existed before, and most of them have contributed a lot of FOSS code back. But they haven't sold databases, reverse proxies, and key/value stores, right? I've paid six-figure annual licenses to Oracle. Is that the world we're trying to preserve here?