Getting open-source contributors paid is a real issue, though his particular case has a few unique wrinkles. Seems to me it's very rare for individual maintainers to be able to make a living solely from their open-source work. Given the permissive nature of the licenses at work, that seems to be by design, though I'm encouraged by the rise of open-core projects that seem to be trying to find a middle ground.
Yes, releasing something for free means you won't get paid for it.<p>There are also enough people willing to do it for free for it to continue. Don't release open source software if your primary goal is to make money.<p>If his goal was to make money, why didn't he release under a free "up to X company size" license? Either your software is worth paying for, or it isn't. I don't understand how this is difficult to understand for so many people.