Are those commercial ventures linking their code with the Git binary? Or are they just building tools which wrap the command-line Git tool?
I'm inclined to think that most (if not all) commercial offerings are going to use the second option, because there won't be much difference to the end-user and it means the company won't have to open-source their code. If Git was permissively-licensed, perhaps those companies would choose to link with the binary (or incorporate the code directly into their products) and contribute patches and bug-fixes back to the project.
perhaps, I think it's some what of a myth that one can't make money from free software. Sure one can't erect flimsy toll booths and extract rents but as I look around I see lots of companies, .eg. IBM profiting quite nicely from free software.
