I think it's wrong to speak of a hacker ethic in such strict terms. I would not say somebody is instantly not a hacker if he holds the believe that it is alright to make a project openly available and sell a corporate version with specific features for example. Where to cross the line is up to each person, the extreme example being rms, who even refuses to use a computer where the BIOS isn't free (which many hackers would say is exorbitant).

Also there are quite many companies and business models around free software / open source software.

Additional examples (granted, some of them no big shots):

-) Canonical

-) Codeweavers

-) id Software (engines under GPL, older games -> source code available)

-) Mandriva / Novell

Also there are sometimes open source strategies for certain products (OpenOffice as Open Source Variant of StarOffice for example).

And what about the hosting providers and Linux / BSD support companies, which granted, aren't global players, but there is a vast amount of them.

Is FOSS compatible with Profit? Yes

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

Is FOSS evenly compatible with profit compared to proprietary products? No, not with today's corporate and economical structures (and the strict copyright)

What goes against "Hacker Ethic" and what not? Debatable