[Owasp-board] [Owasp-leaders] Apologies, Copyright and a free OWASP membership

Eoin eoin.keary at owasp.org
Tue Oct 23 10:49:12 UTC 2007


IMHO,
handing out free membership is dangerous and can be seen as favoritism.
Would not be an idea in the interest of democracy/openness for all owasp
leaders to have some involvement here. Let Company XYZ make a case for free
membership and let us all decide??



On 23/10/2007, Dinis Cruz <dinis at ddplus.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys, here is an email with some information for you which in the OWASP
> spirit of openness I believe you have the right to know about.
>
> Last month, the OWASP board took the decision to extend (for one more
> year) the free OWASP membership given to company XYZ (received last year).
> Note that the number of free memberships given has been very small and
> always have been associated with substantial contributions to OWASP and its
> community.
>
> The problem started when company XYZ requested another year of free OWASP
> membership due to their past contributions and the use of their copyrighted
> materials at an OWASP event.
>
> At this stage the OWASP board made the argument that 'Thanks for your past
> contributions but, if you want to continue to be an OWASP member, you will
> have to pay the full membership fee'
>
> To cut a long story short (and lots of email exchanges) due to a
> mis-understanding of the use of that company's copyrighted materials at an
> OWASP event (which is entirely my fault since I should had been more careful
> and ensure that Company XYZ was aware of what was going on (public
> information on WIKI pages, personal conversions and some emails didn't seem
> to achieved much)).
>
> Things started to get ugly and Jeff decided to cut the losses and allocate
> the requested one-year membership.
>
> Note that I personally didn't agree with this decision (since I felt that
> Company XYZ had a very thin case), BUT with my OWASP hat on, I did agree
> that it was better to avoid a messy incident (this would be a PR suicide for
> that company, but would also be a non-productive use of OWASP board's and
> community's time).
>
> So after a large amount of karma and some personal friendships been
> severely damaged by this incident, the issue is solved and this email is
> just a FYI.
>
> I (and the OWASP board) will not disclose the name of Company XYZ since
> the objective here is to make you aware of the decisions made by the OWASP
> board and not to seek revenge.
>
> As you can tell, I was very upset by this incident since OWASP is
> something very important to me, and I don't like the fact that my actions
> gave Company XYZ the 'excuse' to make its case so strongly.
>
> This is just another example of why we need to always be very careful with
> the copyright state of what we do at OWASP.
>
> Finally, the only positive angle about this incident, is that this company
> must value the "we're OWASP members" brand quite highly, since that is the
> only reason I can find for such harsh tactics.
>
> Maybe, some common sense will prevail and this company will join OWASP as
> a fully paid member .... after all, given enough thrust... even pigs can fly
> :)
>
> Sorry again for this mess,
>
> Dinis Cruz
> Chief OWASP Evangelist
> http://www.owasp.org
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>


-- 
Eoin Keary OWASP - Ireland
http://www.owasp.org/local/ireland.html
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Testing_Project
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Code_Review_Project
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20071023/3d19d897/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list