Just adding my voice to the chorus; I've been a happy VMware user for many years, at home and at work, and I'm currently a Parallels subscriber because and only because VMware keeps failing to deliver a usable product on M1. I do a lot of work in VMware, some in Fusion, and the lack of a working M1 Fusion has led me here. While having Parallels makes my M1 Mac minimally usable, the rest of my computers and environments mean I'm native on VMware's stack, not yours, and if they deliver a working M1 Fusion in the next year (which is very likely), my subscription will not get renewed.
It's not a threat (what do you care about one license more or less?), but instead an opportunity to win mindshare. There is an awful lot VMware delivers that you don't, and I doubt you want to, like ESX, but having a working M1 product is a major opportunity.
Making the license many computers-one user would make me much more likely to flip all of my Macs to Parallels than Fusion, just to make import/export faster and easier. I'd still have to work around ESX being the heavy lifter around here, but you'd at least have an opportunity. With one-license-equals-one-computer, you're just an outlier, waiting to be enough of a difficulty to merit homologization of my workflows.
While a standard issue mass-minted MBA will only see "We would reduce the total number of licenses sold if we allowed multiple machines", someone with more vision will see that you're also taking up more workloads and getting more face time.
Maybe you want to stay the second fiddle to VMware. That's cool. I expect VMware to ship a working M1 client in the next six months, so I'll have lots of easy overlap time before my license runs out. If your licensing was just a little easier for power users to leverage, though, you could possibly take a chunk of VMware's Mac business away from them. Your call.