The problem with this business model is it creates a tension between the OSS version and the paid versions - you want the OSS version to be good, but not such a good solution that nobody feels the need to pay for your SaaS/consulting/etc. That tension seems to inevitably lead to obvious features missing or functionality/knowledge that's needed to operate at any scale coistered away as closed source so the sponsoring entity can make some money.
If the product is more infrastructural you also now have an established pattern (Elastic, Hashicorp etc) of switching to look-but-don't-touch licences to avoid being obliterated as a one-click service for the major cloud providers.
Which isn't to say the article is wrong, I just wish they wouldn't pretend commerically backed OSS is some kind of kumbaya win-win for everyone instead of being effectively a trust growth hack for startups before the need to generate revenue inevitably leads them to turning the screws one way or another on the beloved community that helped them grow.
If the product is more infrastructural you also now have an established pattern (Elastic, Hashicorp etc) of switching to look-but-don't-touch licences to avoid being obliterated as a one-click service for the major cloud providers.
Which isn't to say the article is wrong, I just wish they wouldn't pretend commerically backed OSS is some kind of kumbaya win-win for everyone instead of being effectively a trust growth hack for startups before the need to generate revenue inevitably leads them to turning the screws one way or another on the beloved community that helped them grow.