There's some common-sense understanding of this situation that I'm not sure you're wilfully overlooking or oblivious to. The claim is that it's unjust to blatantly exploit a system that was intended to fund/sustain you, for profit. It's not necessarily illegal behavior since "open access" was not in the terms, but how can it possibly be morally defensible that they have managed to find a way to legally subvert/trick the system for their own benefit? An overly pedantic view of the situation isn't helpful.