To me, it doesn't seem that the role of a product owner goes against the idea of open source.
The ideas of open source software is that of freedom to learn, improve, change, and distribute in the best possible manners that solve real-world problems. It's all about collaboration to create a product that's available to the general public and that's usable, with a great sense of transparency and visibility.
The question you linked to discusses a product owner in the sense of Scrum - an individual who represents the voice of the customer/user for the development team. This is a person who ensures that the product is valuable by creating (or, in some cases, transforming into a usable form) and prioritizing requirements and defect reports.
There are different structures for running open-source projects, just like there are different development methodology and team structures in companies developing commercial software. I don't know of any open source teams that have a "product owner" role, but I can see it being useful in some cases.
The role of a product owner would probably be most useful on a project where the development team is disjoint (fully or partially) from the users of the software. Looking at open source software packages, things like GNUmed, Koha, and Tux Paint stand out - the target audience are people with vastly different backgrounds than software developers (although some users of the packages might have software development experience), and often have special needs or requirements that must be understood. Someone or some people in a role similar to product owner would be useful to ensure that the product is useful to the target audience.
If anything would have a more detailed, authoritative discussion of this, I would suspect it would be the writings of Eric S. Raymond. It sounds like something that might be discussed in The Cathedral and The Bazaar, or a similar essay by Raymond. However, it's been a while since I read these works, so I can't quote anything in particular.