There's nothing at all wrong with what he did - it's just not 'making money from open source' per se. I guess you can argue he would not have made money were it not for the open source project, but the actual money is coming from what he's holding back.
He tried selling support and failed miserably, he made no money. So, he issued a better version of the same software under a commercial license, and that sold well.
RedHat does not do that. Everything they do is available in CentOS, or is available freely. They make money selling support.
Redhat's strategy is a bit more complex than that:
They only support the official Redhat release, but that contains Redhat's trademarks, which you are not free to copy/modify/etc... and indeed, you have to pay for the official release.
I think it ends up being that if you need the official Redhat, you pretty much have to buy it, and buy a long-term-ish support contract.
In any event, support is not a public good along the lines of software: it's very much rivalrous and excludable.
In other words, redhat doesnt make money from open source. But nobody ever complains when they're held up as the poster child for how to make money from open source.
