You really only need to pick between about five licenses: LGPL 2.1, LGPL 3, GPL 2, GPL 3, and Apache/X11/BSD liberal licenses. If you can't stomach licensing your code under any of those licenses, then you need to re-evaluate what exactly is your goal with releasing the code.
License proliferation is a huge problem, because new licenses cause a lot of uncertainty. A license is a legal document, so an ordinary person trying to understand it is basically like a typical consumer trying to read x86 assembler. The words don't mean what you think they would mean, because it's written in "legalese", not English. So before we can understand what your custom license really means, we have to ask a lawyer.
The licenses I mentioned above don't have that problem, because they've existed for years (some of them for over a decade) and in that time they've been looked at by countless lawyers in countless countries, and some have even been tested in court. So the safe bet is really to go with those licenses.
And your custom license's problems aren't limited exclusively to your customers, either: it may turn out to be a problem for you, too, if your license's legal interpretation is not what you expected it to be. Using one of the widely-used licenses, copyleft or not, would make it much easier to certainly interpret the document. Using a well-understood and widely accepted license is better than using a license custom-tailored to your organization, in my opinion.
You can still recoup from this mistake by selecting one of the FSF-approved free software licenses for all your current and future source releases, and just relicense Shadowgrounds and Jack Claw as such. I'd personally opt for a copyleft license, but I really don't care whether you go with copyleft or not, as long as it qualifies as free software (respecting the four freedoms).