I goofed. In my draft Open Data Addendum entry, I said:

Now remember that these highly unsatisfactory examples are drawn from the most prominent Open Access publishing houses, which might be expected to be much more supportive of Open Data than commercial publishers.

This implies, wrongly, that OA publishers are somehow not, or non-, commercial. I think BioMed Central, Hindawi and Medknow might all have something to say about that! As Peter Suber points out in his summary of OA developments in 2006:

Both the Hindawi and Medknow OA journal collections became profitable, an industry first. All the Hindawi OA journals use author-side fees and none of the Medknow journals do so. Together, therefore, they elegantly answered doubts about the business models for fee-based and no-fee OA journals.

It's actually a fairly common FUD tactic from OA opponents to claim that OA journals will never realize profits or even support themselves (so OA is going to destroy all academic publishing and the world will end in flames, etc.). This is, of course, nonsense, and I'm sorry to have lent it unwitting support. I've changed "commercial" to "traditional" in the offending paragraph, and linked to this entry.