Suppose I create a library that builds upon another library under the Apache license.
If the Work includes a "NOTICE " text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file…
There’s debate as to why, but this is understood to bind not only myself with respect to the Apache library, but third parties with respect to my library. Perhaps they are licensees of the original library from the original authors and bound by this term. Or perhaps they are sublicensees of my license to use the original library, and since my license requires me to follow this term, when they exercise my rights they have the same obligation. Ordinarily this is a distinction without a difference, but having different ways to get to the same result creates reliability in licensing, papering over the difficult areas of the law.
There is a difference in your license because I cannot “sublicense the Work”. So if I build on a Peace Library I can’t extend a sublicense to my users in the way I can usually. This might work out under the theory they get licenses directly from you, but it might not.
One example of “maybe not” is when the law decides to view some program as a “combined work”, even though you might call it a Collection of works or an Adaptation of underlying works. If the combined work contains apache code and your code, it can’t be licensed under the apache license (missing your terms) nor the peace license (missing the credit terms).
For this reason I’d treat the license as Apache-incompatible. It might be compatible, or might be on a fact-dependent basis, but that’s not the sort of thing I’d ever want to find out.
Intention is important when it comes to ethics, but is hard to litigate.
For the purposes of ascertaining my ethics, reaching into the mind of a president is not important and in fact irrelevant. I’d imagine the only function of this clause is to create opportunities for lawyers to strike parts of the license that are important to you, or to bill some hours researching executive privilege law and advising me not to touch it.
there are no employees nor salaries,
This is a tax strategy. Self-employed people sometimes have salaries, whereas shell companies for example, usually do not. This probably does not function how you expect.
Would customer segmentation be “prioritizes some above others on the basis of percieved membership within certain groups”
It certainly sounds that way to me. The perspective you want reading a license is not “am I probably reading this correctly” but rather “how could this be read against me and I’d have to pay lawyers”? There are a lot of ways in this text.
I wanted for my projects and others protected by ethical source license to not be dismissed immediately like they are in general by people like Bruce Perens.
Have you spoken to Bruce Perens? Obviously I can’t speak for him but my understanding is he’s opposed to the social project, not only specific texts. If so, no amount of fiddling with texts can be useful.