pabs3 parent
That sounds like what the Open Source Definition does.
> That wouldn’t comply with the Open Source Definition, which prohibits discrimination against any person, group, or field of endeavor.
If a DUKI-licensed project (similar to MIT, but requiring a business using it freely to “donate 1% of its net profits to a global fund”), how does this conflict with the Open Source Definition and prevent it from being called open source?
> a business
This is the discriminatory part. If you made the fee requirement of everyone regardless of the type of organisation they are part of or not part of, then that might be OSD-compliant.