The license collective described in the article is just another way of selling commercial licenses in addition to offering a FOSS license to keep the software free and open source.
I'm not sure why a company would ban software from license collectives, unless they a) have a policy against paying for any software licenses at all, and b) have a policy against using copyleft-licensed software. A company that implements these policies is probably not going to benefit the software developer financially regardless of how the software is licensed.
Edit: Replying to your edit, no, I'm not the author of the article. In the proposed arrangement, the user can choose to comply with the FOSS license, pay for a commercial license (via the collective), or not use the software. If the user is unable or unwilling to comply with a copyleft license, the ability to use the software is an incentive for the user to pay for the commercial license. On the other hand, if the software were under the BSD/MIT License, the user would have no incentive to pay any money to the developer (unless they felt like making a donation). Companies that ban software from license collectives were, in all likelihood, never going to pay the developer even if the software were BSD/MIT-licensed, so they are financially irrelevant to the developer. It's the users who don't have such policies that are going to make the difference.
I'm not sure why a company would ban software from license collectives, unless they a) have a policy against paying for any software licenses at all, and b) have a policy against using copyleft-licensed software. A company that implements these policies is probably not going to benefit the software developer financially regardless of how the software is licensed.
Edit: Replying to your edit, no, I'm not the author of the article. In the proposed arrangement, the user can choose to comply with the FOSS license, pay for a commercial license (via the collective), or not use the software. If the user is unable or unwilling to comply with a copyleft license, the ability to use the software is an incentive for the user to pay for the commercial license. On the other hand, if the software were under the BSD/MIT License, the user would have no incentive to pay any money to the developer (unless they felt like making a donation). Companies that ban software from license collectives were, in all likelihood, never going to pay the developer even if the software were BSD/MIT-licensed, so they are financially irrelevant to the developer. It's the users who don't have such policies that are going to make the difference.