I was responding to the parent comment not the article. The article makes great point. It essentially talks about a services and support business around open source. Some have been doing this for decades.
When you have contracts and support at a cost you aren't doing the work for free. The article is talking about running open source like a business rather than a volunteer situation. That means, you're not doing everything for free.
This comment is pretty disingenuous. (I personally found it a bit obnoxious.)
The person you're responding to made it very clear that they were responding to your conclusion that "large SV companies and startup should also start agreeing to pay for open source, when it's the core of the tech". The fact that you have support and services available isn't a "gotcha!" that refutes the point they are making, which is that given that there is also a zero-cost "product" available, then (unsurprisingly) prospective customers prefer that one instead.
See the article...