New license request: R74n-1.0 [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[slweeb]

1. License Name: R74n Content License
2. Short identifier: R74n-1.0
3. License Author or steward: R74n
4. Comments: This is a unique license that is archived and stable, and can be used by anyone.
5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/326
6. URL(s): https://r74n.com/license-template.txt
7. OSI Status: 0
8. Example Projects: https://sandboxels.r74n.com/, https://r74n.com/license.txt, https://c.r74n.com/license.txt

[jlovejoy]

New submission review

• Has the license been approved by the OSI?
  • Yes
  • No

Definitive Factors

These must all be satisfied to allow inclusion in the license list

1. Is the submitted license unique, that is, it does not match another license already on the License List as per the matching guidelines?
   • Yes
   • No
2. If a software license, does it apply to source code and not only to executables?
   • doesn't specify b/w source and binary, applies to more than just software
3. Does the license have identifiable and stable text, and is not in the midst of drafting?
   • it looks like it is a brand new license
4. Has the license steward, if any, committed to versioning new versions and to not modify it after addition to the list?
   • unclear, license steward listed is not a person

Other factors for inclusion

Roughly in order of descending importance

1. Does the license substantially comply with one of the free/open content definitions? (examples include the Open Source Definition and the Debian Free Software Guidelines) (Approval by the organisation that publishes the definition is not required)
   • Yes
   • No - it includes several restrictions on use. It also seem to lack a clear license grant.
2. Is the license structured to be generally usable by anyone, and not specific to one organisation or project?
   • Yes
   • No
3. Does the license have substantial use such that it is likely to be encountered (ie. use in many projects, or in one significant project)? (For recently written licenses, definitive plans for it to be used in at least one or a few significant projects may satisfy this)
   • looks like a new license that is maybe used by one project?
4. Is the license primarily intended to facilitate the free distribution of content with limited restrictions?
   • sort of, but see other comments
5. Does the license steward support this submission, or is at least aware of and not in opposition of it?
   • unclear

Summary of factors, outcome, comments

While we can consider further information as to the background and use of this license, since that is unclear from the submission, based on the other factors, I'd lean towards not accepting it due to it not being a free/open license and also not having a clearly drafted license grant.

[richardfontana]

There's no indication this license has been in use for more than a few weeks, but leaving that aside, and also leaving aside it isn't even "partially" FOSS, how would someone actually "encounter" this license? The link is to a web-based video game of some sort, maybe the source code is available by using "view source" in a browser (but that doesn't itself seem to show any license information). There's no indication of a public source development repository, for example. The only way someone would see the license is if they clicked on "All Rights Reserved", which is pretty non-obvious.

[jlovejoy]

@richardfontana - I do not know! But I presume you are not in favor of adding?

I updated my analysis above, as I forgot to "click" some of the check boxes.

[Pizza-Ria]

Just the first line seems to call for a rejection: "We reserve the right to request that you remove our content from your project at any time, for any reason."

[richardfontana]

Agreed, it is an obvious candidate for non-inclusion at this time.

[jlovejoy]

thanks for weighing in. I will now mark this as not-accepted for the reasons stated above and close the issue.