Food for lawyers

Matt Asay suggests that a definition for an open source company would be:

An open source company is one that, as its core revenue-generating business, actively produces, distributes, and sells (or sells services around) software under an OSI-approved license.

So, supposing that a company produces a software product. It is released under the GPL (or other OSI-approved license). Its business model is to sell versions of the software under a commercial license (the famous “dual-licensing” business model). In such a case, the core revenue-gnerating business produces, distributes, and sells software which is explicitly not under an open source license — even though the exact same bits are available under an open source license.

Under the proposed definition would such a company be an open source company?