How we review game sources and licenses

Publication starts with provenance, not appearance

A game can run correctly and still be unsuitable for publication. Before Q00P considers presentation, category, or promotional placement, the review begins with provenance: where the package came from, who created or supplied it, and what evidence supports the right to publish it. A familiar title, polished artwork, or publicly accessible download is not proof that redistribution or commercial use is permitted.

The reviewer records the source and the basis for use. For an original Q00P package, that record connects the game to the internal creation process and its release files. For any future third-party package, the record would need to identify the licensor and the relevant terms. Packages with unclear ownership, missing terms, or conflicting information should remain unpublished until the issue is resolved.

License evidence must match the intended use

Licenses are not interchangeable. Permission to play a game, view source code, or use an asset personally does not automatically include the right to host it on an advertising-supported portal. The review therefore looks for the permissions that matter to the planned use: hosting, public display, commercial use, modification where applicable, and redistribution of the files required by the browser.

Restrictions matter as much as permissions. A license may require attribution, prohibit modification, limit distribution to a particular platform, or exclude certain assets from the main grant. The review record should preserve the text or evidence that was relied upon, along with enough context to understand which version of the package it covered. A link alone may change or disappear, so Q00P retains private, checksummed evidence for each published game.

Assets inside the package receive separate attention

A game package can combine code, fonts, sound effects, music, images, icons, and third-party libraries. The person who assembled the package may not own every component. Review therefore considers whether included assets have their own notices or license files and whether those terms are compatible with publication. Replacing an uncertain asset is often safer than assuming it is covered by a general statement about the game.

Brand names and recognizable characters also require care. A game should not imply sponsorship or use protected material merely because similar content appears elsewhere online. Q00P favors original presentation and neutral descriptions. When attribution is required, it should be accurate, visible in the appropriate place, and consistent with the source terms rather than added as a vague disclaimer.

Package integrity is checked before launch

After the rights basis is documented, the technical package is inspected. The expected entry file must exist, referenced assets must load, and the game must not depend on a private development path. The package should avoid executable server-side code, hidden administrator tools, or unnecessary network calls. File names and paths are normalized so that the launch behaves consistently on the isolated player origin.

Checksums help connect the reviewed evidence, stored package, and published runtime. If files change, the new package should be reviewed rather than silently treated as the same release. Q00P also validates that each public game page points to a reachable runtime and that the runtime assets return successful responses. A package is not marked ready merely because its catalog card exists.

The player origin limits access to the main portal

Published game files are served from a separate player origin instead of being executed directly inside the main application origin. This design helps separate game code from administrator sessions, application cookies, database-backed pages, and private backups. The game is embedded through a controlled iframe and receives only the browser capabilities needed for the experience.

Isolation is not a substitute for source review, but it reduces the consequences of a mistake. Q00P also uses HTTPS, production-safe error handling, authenticated administration, and private storage for recovery archives and rights evidence. These controls are reviewed together because a strong license record does not fix an exposed backup, and a secure server does not create publishing rights that were never granted.

Publication can be reversed when evidence changes

Review is a release decision, not a permanent declaration that can never be revisited. A rights holder may provide new information, a license page may reveal a previously missed restriction, or an updated package may introduce different assets. Q00P needs a clear way to unpublish a game while the record is examined. Removing public access is preferable to leaving a disputed package online during an unresolved review.

Players and rights holders can use the contact and copyright pages to report a concern with enough detail for investigation. Useful reports identify the game, the claimed work, the basis of the concern, and a reliable way to follow up. Q00P’s goal is not to collect the largest possible catalog; it is to maintain a smaller catalog in which each published game has a documented source, retained evidence, a validated package, and a working isolated launch.