feels like the conflation of "free open-source software" in the Stallman sense with "nonfree open-source software" muddies up all of these discussions/judgements on how software should run

nonfree open-source software offers the right to repair, a promise that the code you use will be free forever, and the right to inspect (security/functionality). for some developers those rights + promises are enough.

the author places common business models at odds with "OS philosopy"...not sure that's true. at odds with Stallman's definition of free software which has some pretty aggressive moral tilt ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-prog... ) ...but outside of that, I think most of these business models are actually Just Fine.

Fascinating topic, awesome seeing how people are thinking about it!

I found the article a little hand-wavey though, would love to hear more about the short comings of dual-licenses

True... It is explained better in the white paper linked in the article. Did you read this part?

I admittedly didn’t, will give it a read now though!

Open Source is a system of perfect logic built on the foundation of a few flawed assumptions.

“I’d love to go open-source, but it just doesn’t pay the bills”