When you have a product with very low marginal cost of production, the market price for the product often tends towards $0. If you have a business that sells software licenses and someone develops a viable alternative (for whatever reason) and starts distributing it for free, you may have a hard time competing against them. And if the free alternative gains enough market share, both parties may find it difficult to pay for continued development. That's just how the market works.
Software is essentially worthless once it exists. Even if many people and many businesses rely on it, there may not be any economic value in maintaining it. If you need to get paid, you may have to do something else for living.
What you're describing is where the interests of commercial users and free contributors diverge. When that doesn't align, commercial users have to tow the line. If they can't make that work, that's not Open Source's fault.
imo it still serves as a way to strengthen resumes of job applicants. Just have a few GH projects with decent "stars" to show you know how to build things. I don't endorse it (because the projects then often get abandoned after employment)—maybe it'd be better to have a "badge" on the GH page showing what the purpose of the project really is.
I think the open source experiment has failed and that we need to embrace moving toward a compensated-commercial source model. Companies are strongly opposed to this because they can't freeload on volunteer work and other companies anymore, but it should be done.