yes you could launch a journal like that, and given enough funds -- as in plenty of millions -- and a strong network of people involved it might even become mod

yes you could launch a journal like that, and given enough funds -- as in plenty of millions -- and a strong network of people involved it might even become moderately successful, but the workflow wouldn't become widely adopted (=no change on a significant level). existing subscription journals would have no incentive to allow republication at all, even less so with a measly 1 month embargo period. citations and high IFs don't depend on permissive licensing and openness -- they are more easily reached via established subscription publishers who already have the supply chain to serve their content to thousands of subscribing organizations and millions of academics. i mean OA/OS itself is a good example here. it's been an ongoing project for some 20 years, and granted there has been change, it's also been ample time for the industry to adapt to and limit this change. so now you have read-and-publish agreements (=more expensive subscriptions basically), transformative agreements (=we'll go full OA once you've lined our pockets enough), etc. meanwhile there are plenty of journals, initiatives, manifestos, platforms -- PLoS stable of journals, other publishers, all the various *rxivs popping up, COS and OSF -- advocating hard for OA/OS but they're ultimately limited to carving a niche for themselves with little effect on the wider system itself. and achieving even that little effect has involved an ungodly amount of policy changes and introducing mandates that favor this one particular mode of communication. so yeah i don't think this will catch on either, not in my lifetime at least.