|
| 1 | +Usage of FRR names/logos |
| 2 | +======================== |
| 3 | + |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +As FRRouting has become a popular open source suite of routing protocol |
| 6 | +implementations, it has also become popular to use FRRouting as an environment |
| 7 | +to prototype or test new features/protocols/etc. in. Such use is absolutely |
| 8 | +welcome (and a freedom guaranteed by the GPL license). |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +However, references to FRRouting in such context can be misunderstood both as |
| 11 | +endorsements as well as promises of current or future availability. To contain |
| 12 | +such misunderstandings, we would like to place the following limitations on the |
| 13 | +use of the "FRRouting" name (or "FRR" where clear by context) as well as the |
| 14 | +"chicken-head" logo (as they are ultimately "valuable trademarks"): |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +- Advertisements, presentations, announcements, etc. of projects based on |
| 17 | + FRRouting may only reference the 3 above-mentioned marks if the full source |
| 18 | + code of said project is publicly available (under terms compatible with |
| 19 | + FRRouting's licenses and without any access barriers) and locatable (either |
| 20 | + by direct link or a reasonable search) on the internet. |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +- References to code or features using the wording "in" FRRouting may only be |
| 23 | + made for bits that are part of FRRouting's "master" or "stable" branches (or |
| 24 | + history). This is specifically about the word "in". |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +- use in previously created documents/publications/... is permitted |
| 27 | + ("grandfathered"), so long as the use retains its context. Noone is |
| 28 | + expected to scan their history and eliminate references. |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +The intent is as follows: |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +- you are under no obligation to publish code just because it exists. The |
| 34 | + above are only restrictions on the use of FRRouting trademarks. |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +- The code itself being derivative of FRRouting (and therefore containing the |
| 37 | + name/logo) is not considered use of the trademarks. You do not need to |
| 38 | + eliminate the name from your private codebase. |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +- pushing your code to github and/or opening a (maybe draft) PR trivially |
| 41 | + fulfills the availability condition above, and we'd like to encourage this |
| 42 | + as the "default". However, publishing on your own hosting services is also |
| 43 | + acceptable. |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +- please use phrasing like "available *for* FRRouting" or "we have implemented |
| 46 | + XYZ *using* FRRouting", and refrain from "available *in* FRRouting" or "we |
| 47 | + have implemented XYZ *in* FRRouting". In particular due to the world-wide |
| 48 | + and multilingual nature of the FRRouting community, *in* carries too high a |
| 49 | + risk for confusion - and conversely, reserving this term also allows clear |
| 50 | + and meaningful signaling of some (your?) code in fact becoming part of |
| 51 | + FRRouting. |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +- while "advertisement" may create an impression of "sales call" or "vendor |
| 54 | + presentation", this also applies to engineering processes such as IETF |
| 55 | + standards development work. |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +These rules, while lawyer-y to some degree, are intended to convey FRRouting |
| 59 | +community consensus and help clarify communication. We certainly hope we will |
| 60 | +never need to pick them apart or even legally enforce them. However, in the |
| 61 | +spirit of all legalese: |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +This document is not to be construed as any grant of rights, guarantees, |
| 64 | +agreement or other similar, even implicit. |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +P.S.: note that "Free Range Routing" is not a name we use, and neither should |
| 68 | +you - there seem to be conflicting trademarks from completely unrelated |
| 69 | +parties. |
0 commit comments