Isn't dual licensed open source software a hybrid?

Matt Assay is probably one of the most vocal zealots in the "religious right" of the Open Source movement.  Matt's views which are well documented, are that if it is not an OSI approved license, it is not open source, Microsoft is the evil empire and that eventually all non-open source software (as he defines it) is headed for the junk pile or museum. So it is no surprise then that he takes issue with Microsoft's Clint Patterson comments:

"The open-source development model has yet to demonstrate the ability
to support profitable software businesses that can drive the
coordinated research and testing necessary to sustain innovation. Many
in the open-source software community have shifted to hybrid business
models. They are making the same business decisions as any commercial
software company in terms of what products and services to give away,
what intellectual property to protect, how to generate revenue, and how
to participate in the community."

Matt then proceeds to do a lawyer like point by point rebuttal. Of course though Matt claims all of Patterson's claims are false, even he admits that most of them are at least partially true.  Beyond that though, Matt's arguments are the usual zealots type of drivel.  Whether we were talking about open source software or religious extremism, extreme zealots arguments have certain consistencies across the board.  Here is one:  When responding to this:

"The open-source development model has yet to demonstrate the ability
to support profitable software businesses that can drive the
coordinated research and testing necessary to sustain innovation"  Matt says while it may be true, who is Microsoft to talk about innovation. Matt that does not answer the question at hand. And Matt, forgive me for bringing this up, but when you are driving the kind of revenue Microsoft is I don't think they are as quite concerned with it as you are.  They have already done their foundational work Matt.  When you have that kind of market cap, you can get away with it.

But my bigger problem is Matt denying that hybrid models are not the trend in open source. Matt narrowly defines hybrid models as cases where source code is not entirely released under an open source license.  I don't think that is the issue. I think dual licensed software, which almost every commercial open source vendor is using now (including us here at StillSecure) is a hybrid model.  It is the future of open source.  The days of wild eyed hippies preaching free love, free sex and free software are over. Commercial entities how distribute software under an open source license need to be able to monetize their investment in the IP and dual licensing is a way to do it.  Also, companies who license their software under GPL, but only make it available to paying customers are violating the spirit if not the letter of the open source license as well.

The bottom line is extremism is a bad thing in just about everything.  There are no absolutes and you can't let your emotions get in the way of common sense when looking at open source software.