It's an interesting take on it, but there's a lot of assumption here - not least of which is that Oracle somehow did this because it was the "right thing" or a "good" thing to do. Indeed that's founded on the assumption that Open Office is/was, to quote "a very viable and free alternative to Microsoft's bloated, way-too-expensive Microsoft Office". I'm not sure I buy that, for various reasons it hasn't been shown to be viable in the market. Even before Oracle pulled the plug-in stunt (which was shoddy, certainly) I don't think Open Office was gaining huge traction outside of occasional companies and people driven by ideology.

To me it seems more likely that Oracle couldn't figure out a way to make money out of it and got shot of it in such a way that caused least backlash and left the least possible blame attached or Oracle in future - now the community is solely to blame for any future failings.

Just my take of course, but I don't personally feel like "Open Source" has won any fight here - I don't think Oracle would even acknowledge there was a fight.