You can write the rules for your software in whatever license terms you like, and I stand for your right to do so. My concern is whether you and other companies

You can write the rules for your software in whatever license terms you like, and I stand for your right to do so. My concern is whether you and other companies in your position will have good, reusable options for implementing the rules you need in ways potential users will understand. Maybe your goal with the new "Functional" brand, rather than a new "Sentry License", was just to communicate that you'd welcome follow-on by other companies who happen to make all the same license choices you did, and are willing to put that under a neutral brand, rather than your own. But I strongly suspect you'd get more reuse and stronger branding for your approach, in the long term, by remembering how much confusion and controversy conjoined naming like "MIT + Commons Clause" and "Apache2 + Commons Clause" caused. I know and deeply respect a number of people involved in that presentational choice. I think they made for apparently good reasons, to give everyone who came together around the project a way to adopt without dropping the brands of their current open licenses. I also think it's safe to say it backfired.