What I read in the article seemed to be a case of not knowing the specifics of the companies being named, but rather attributing generalities to them. Of course, the article is correct in the specifics regarding what the Apache organization is, how RedHat operates, etc. But... at some point in the past, there have been business models selling Apache support - nothing that's going to generate an attractive 100:1 ROI, so that's why the VCs yawn. Also, they speak of open source models which allow authors to retain control over derivative works, and while OSI is strictly against this, there are other models (like Creative Commons variants) that do specify this.
So, what I see is VCs who have "a little knowledge" spouting it in association with oblique references to specific companies and models that don't really match up at all, but it's all "that open source stuff" to them... People getting pedantic with deep knowledge and concrete specifics need to understand that VCs take your areas of interest a lot less seriously than you do. Just because they control hundreds of millions of investment dollars doesn't make them super-human, and in-fact that concern of the big money in some ways reduces their capacity to understand and even care about other issues.