There's a problem with non-commercial/ethical/usecase-restricted software licenses, in that it breaks the public commons - everybody is going to have a different set of ethical constraints, and so if people build on each other's work (as they would in a public commons) you will eventually end up with so many different constraints applying to *some* part of the project, that practically nobody can use the whole thing anymore.

But then there's end-user software. Unlike software libraries and such, the end-user software is the thing that has commercial value. And unlike software libraries and such, there are usually no meaningful ways to build on top of it, other than creating a direct derivative of the existing thing (and so sticking with the existing license would be fine).

So how about this: extract as much of the technical logic as you can into stand-alone libraries or packages, and license them under an unrestricted FOSS license. Then publish the actual end-user software (which would mainly be the UI, architecture, data model, that sort of thing) under a more restrictive ethical or non-commercial license.

I don't *personally* think that ethical licenses are very practically useful due to the power dynamics in copyright, but if you want it as another tool in your toolbox anyway, this seems to be the approach with the least collateral damage?