The real question is: Why do you want to add such a clause in the first place? Why do you think it will benefit you? I mean, what is your plan with this? This is what I always wonder when artists want to apply restrictive clauses, especially when there's not even an expectation of money.
Is it personal pride? Or is it because you would feel 'robbed'? Or is it something else. Seriously, unironically, I just want to know. I saw so many artists having this mindset, but I never understood it. Maybe I'm just bad at empathy or something. But if you do not want to answer this, eh, whatever. It's not that important.
Anyway, I don't know if I can actually help you answer to your actual question (not a lawyer), whether the "this thing was not approved by me" sentence is still compatible with FOSS or not, I'm not sure. This idea that it is somewhat comparable with the attribution clause sounds reasonable on surface, but I don't know if it would be techically inompatible with FOSS.
Actually, when I think about it, thinking about FOSS licenses is the wrong approach, it's better to look at the
Definition of Free Cultural WorksThe interesting part is that it includes a section called "permissible restrictions". It looks like what you want would fall under a "No Endorement" rule:
https://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_ ... ndorsementAttribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.
Such an attribution should not imply an endorsement by the original authors of changes made by others. Licenses may place restrictions on the use of one author's trademarks in versions of the work which have been modified by others.
IIRC, the "BY" (Attribution) clause in the Creative Commons license also ALWAYS implies that the license grant itself is NEVER an official endorsement of the artist. E.g. just becaue you grant someone to use your work under CC BY 4.0, does not mean you also officially endorse the things whatever other people do.
As for my personal, layperson, not-a-lawyer opinion: I feel like this condition you like to add is not
really that big of a deal. It's basically just a single sentence that would amount to about the same work as the usual attribution requirement that we all are used to anyway. So, in my opinion, it seems not an unreasonable request. But I would say it more depends on how practical it is to implement. If your request would be a ton of work to honor, that might be a little problem. You weren't very specfic here so far.
However, one practical problem I see is that there does not seem to be a ready-made license for your very specific usecase. In general, the recommendation is to only use licenses that have stood the test of time. And writing your own license is BAD (law is complex, the chance that you screw up as a layperon is high).
Off-topic:
That macOS thing: Heh. I'm not judging. As you (and everyone else in this forum, I hope) probably know, I am a big FOSS zealot. But I think it is not wrong if you use proprietary systems
for yourself. Nowadays, I see using proprietary software
for yourself kind of a "bad habit", as smoking, i.e. you harm yourself but not neccessarily others (Unless you're pregnant, OK, the analogy is not perfect! I know.). Just be aware that Apple, Inc. is a BIG enemy of user freedom (much worse than Microsoft, actually), as documented
here or
here. The problem are the big MegaCorps that abuse their users and workers, not the users themselves, after all.
There's a reason why I'm in that FOSS game. It's not just because. I think FOSS is ultimately beneficial to society as a whole, while proprietary software primarily only benefits its legal owners / copyright holders and is, overall, harmful because of built-in control mechanisms, lock-in, legal threats, dominating the competition, and all that. FOSS is stll the underdog, but I am still convinced things can change to the better, but it is still a long struggle.
Also: Trans people are valid. Took me long enough to say that, and I feel like a little shit for not saying it earlier. In the last months, I have learned a lot about trans issues, and I completely underestimated the constant discrimination from basically everywhere. Like, holy shit. I recommend everyone who reads this to up their knowledge about "transgender" as well, there is SO much misinformation about this topic (esp. from conservatives, they are FULL OF SHIT). I don't know what I should link, so I just link
Wikipedia.