Open-source projects often function like a system of charity and honor. The honor goes to the contributors, while the charitable benefits flow to those who can use it to generate revenue. This model works well for both parties and indirectly benefits humanity.

However, I personally believe—perhaps naively—that the charity could be directed toward all humans in a more direct and obvious way. For example, when a project is released under a license, businesses that use it to make money would donate a small percentage of their profits—say, 1%—to a global fund: the "Decentralized Universal Kindness Income" (DUKI /dju:ki/). The business behind the main contributors would be exempt from this donation, or could choose a reduced percentage. This gives them an advantage when big companies use their project to compete against them (the reason why Redis changed its license).

The benefits are clear. Contributors would receive greater global recognition for their efforts—especially from those outside the tech industry—while businesses that donate would gain access to a wealth of open-source resources (if enough high-quality DUKI-licensed projects exist), also earning respect as a marketing strategy. They would likely gain a competitive advantage compared to those who do not.

I've called this concept the “DUKI License.” At its heart, it’s the MIT License with one simple addition: a profit-sharing requirement. Unfortunately, I don’t have the power to market it, and still unsure how it would be received by the very people who steer the open-source world—the project founders and core maintainers

I like the idea. But it is missing something to actually get money out of companies, I think? Because even when there are people in a company that are nominally willing to pay, there is usually so much friction/hassle to actually get money out of a company - that it most often ends up not happening for open source. Unless there is something that "forces" them.