I think you're absolutely right and perhaps I brought up the example of the Apache Foundation as one that seems to be working, but even it too is quite different from the model that OP was proposing.
To get specific, I mean "open source" as in "I can go read the source and contribute bug fixes." Forks could be treated as derivatives, like remixes or covers of music. The originator of the IP would share in the revenue of any fork.
I think ultimately where I would like to see this is Google, Apple, etc, paying for the software they use in the form of one big lump royalty fee based on a percentage of their gross revenue. That would entitle them to use any software with the license, no questions asked.
My viewpoint is heavily Western-world skewed, unlike other countries where co-ops are more commonplace. Apologies in advance, I'm always trying to escape such a singular world view.
Your model might actually make businesses very happy, actually. Dealing with tons of different open source licenses no doubt adds legal burden/costs to commercial efforts. It would simplify both payment and legal terms. The tricky part then becomes getting enough people to contribute their work - it would be as much a marketing pitch to contributors. Probably similar in difficulty to trying to start a marketplace where you need both contributors and consumers.
I suppose one thing you could do was have a "pay-what-you-can-or-nothing" tier as an option that your contributors could choose. This way, there is still a both open and "free" version in the cases where people choose to offer that for their intellectual property.
I'm thinking a little bit of a variation on Patreon in the back of my head as well.
What I could not avoid with your type of thinking, was ending up with something that seemed like a patent/copyright shell company. If someone can be excluded from licensing by not paying a due, then is this truly open? I understand your intention is to re-use open source licenses and add a small clause directing payment for use to this open licensing organization, but ultimately, I think that such an organization may become a threat not a benefit.
I might be wrong - the Apache Foundation works pretty well for humanity, and Apache licensing works well also. And, they seem to raise at least enough funding to keep the lights on from their supporters.
I personally always get stuck debating between the concepts of for-profit [1] / non-profit [2] and public [3] / private [4] goods.
I think the tendency in these discussions is not to get specific enough about what we are talking about. For example, the traditional confusion between "free" and "open" source software... e.g. the "free as in beer" vs. "freedom of speech" [5].
In a sense, your proposal would solve that problem because it would create a clear organization supporting a clear license, with a clear compensation mechanism. However, how would this organization run? As a non-profit? As a for-profit? Maybe a social benefit corporation [6]? I think the choice is everything, if it can work at all. There's a reason, I think, that open source is especially associated with the rise of the Internet and networks, and decentralization, and sharing. Perhaps there is not a perfect legal model for such a thing.
I think in a naive sense, the concept of "open source" is sometimes thought to be analogous to able to be saying that a copy of the intellectual property can be used and/or modified without restriction, the copy can be owned by anyone, and can be shared with anyone, in any situation (commercial or not). Of course, depending on the specific license (GPL, AGPL, MIT, Apache, etc.) there are differing degrees of how open "open" really is.
There is a desire to make something.. truly open with literally no restriction. Ironically, many companies and organizations might not touch such a thing out of fear of the origin, they worry if they use it they might get sued. It's almost as if we cannot have a situation where there is just a piece of intellectual property, openly shared, without a license (for example, "common knowledge".. a gray area term as well, but, do you have a license for it?).
This again is an area that clarification may help... if you know that you have access to this huge portfolio of IP and source, as a member of such an organization as you propose, you don't have to worry about the license anymore as long as you pay your dues. But, what risk would such an organization carry? We need look no further than to the recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft to see an example, we'll have to see how that turns out.
I think I'm rambling now, but I hope some of these thoughts come together to help. I'd be willing to chat more about this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation