[Owasp-board] Apache Brand Guidelines
jim.manico at owasp.org
Mon Nov 30 23:29:57 UTC 2015
I did talked to the Apache marketing lead about project sponsorship
I asked, why the current guide, how did you get there and does it work?
The main points we discussed form
1) Sponsors of Apache and recognized on ONE page only:
2) All Apache projects link back to this sponsorship page.
3) Corporate logos are not allowed on any Apache project
4) All project contributors are recognized as *individuals only* in a
tabular list (without logos) which can include the company name they
work for. For example: http://hadoop.apache.org/who.html
The response was:
1) The financial benefit to our marketing brand support limits (no per
project sponsorship) is that we do not have to bucket donations into
different project buckets. That would be an insane accounting nightmare
that we removed when building this guide.
2) The use of Apache trademarks early on was getting to be a problem.
3) This limit led to MORE giant donations form Microsoft and others.
4) This limit let to MORE volunteerism
Also, if someone wants to use the Apache brand for most cases outside of
Apache, they need to ask permission and get approved.
If you would like to join me in talking to them again, we can open a
dialogue with vp-brand at apache.org as a board.
PS: At the time the board was not so inclined to shift OWASP in the
direction of Apache. I think such a move would only augment OWASP in
many ways. It's makes OWASP A more "safe place". OWASP is not so safe
right now from a branding trust perspective IMO.
On 12/1/15 1:18 AM, Josh Sokol wrote:
> The notes from the meeting say "Perhaps Michael or Simon could reach
> out to contacts" with respect to Apache/Mozilla help here. Have we
> actually asked either of them to do it or has someone else done it?
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org
> <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
> Absolutely, I would MUCH rather have legal resources work on this
> than I. I'm ok to spend money on this, it's very important.
> Tom is always pushing me to "actually do something, and not just
> talk about it" and he is right. But this is a (much) better course.
> Let do it.
> - Jim
> On 11/30/15 11:35 PM, Matt Konda wrote:
>> We talked about both Apache and Mozilla. I like this route too.
>> We had hoped to enlist one of their legal team's support as part
>> of their commitment to open source and to get more than just a
>> starting point but a collaborative product. That may or may not
>> be realistic, but it seemed like a good way to get started.
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org
>> <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
>> Someone recently suggested we model a new OWASP brand
>> guideline after the Apache foundation.
>> I discussed some of the details of this back in 2013
>> I'd be glad to draft a new policy with Josh and others if you
>> would all like. I think it will do wonders to help keep
>> benchmark-like issues at bay as well as give us a little
>> muscle to clean up search term advertising using OWASP.
>> - Jim
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
Global Board Member
Join me in Rome for AppSecEU 2016
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board