It depends on what kind of Open Source model you are using.
The first model of Open Source is where someone just wants to build a great piece of software which everyone contributes to. The objective is just to build a great OS, a great painting application, a great IDE etc. and not worry about how much money _someone else_ is making off of it. If the license allows making money off the software as a service, then I don't think you can call it grifting in all fairness. It would be nice to contribute back and one might quibble about how much company X is contributing back but these contributions would be voluntary since the license does not require that.
The second model is if you want to make some money off of Open Source. In that case you probably need to have a more restrictive license in certain scenarios. No problem with that too. It depends on what your objectives are as the author of a Open Source project.
The Linux kernel is a great example of a "commons" in which code is contributed. Some companies make a lot of money out of this. I don't resent that because the license allows that. It also allows small startups and companies to use Linux without worrying too much about License compliance etc.
If someone were to use DBOS which uses VoltDB and don't wish to spent money, they might need to worry about license compliance with its Affero GPL components. Why take on the headache? Just use Linux + other clustering solutions, even thought its may not be as advanced in some respects as DBOS.
Anyways, I actually don't know what the licensing model of DBOS truly is in terms of using VoltDB components specifically and generally speaking. It's possible that DBOS has liberal licensing. Someone more knowledgeable would need to add a comment on that.
Lastly, DBOS comes across as something that is being heavily developed so I'm not aware of whether it can even be downloaded by others and used to get work done...