The way I wrote it, it should be more obvious that this isn't an open-source license per se.
What you want a commercial software where you offer exceptions to certain classes of users. Sometimes, this is called dual-licensing. But overall, the controlling license for use of the software is necessarily a proprietary license of some kind.
i chose the name "Paid Use Permissive License" thinking that that would make it clear that it's not Open Source. but i'll see if there's any way that i can make it more obvious
which class of users do you see as receiving exceptions ? one of my goals in writing it was to limit (via the assurances) the degree to which an owner could segment a market, eg it requires published prices, and if they provide low-cost licenses to one user, that user can resell them
I'm not sure who your audience is. If I'm shipping software under a commercial license of some kind (like your license), I want my attorney to vet the license for my jurisdiction(s) before I use it. My attorney would likely not choose this license (because it's not written by an attorney, and does not have features attorneys would expect to see in a software license).
If I'm selling software, I would generally expect it to be licensed under a bespoke license. This doesn't fit that need.
What you want a commercial software where you offer exceptions to certain classes of users. Sometimes, this is called dual-licensing. But overall, the controlling license for use of the software is necessarily a proprietary license of some kind.