[Owasp-board] Brand Usage Guidelines

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Fri Mar 25 20:29:36 UTC 2016


Noreen,

 > I reviewed the Mozilla and Apache branding guidelines and guidelines 
surrounding use. For the my part, they are less detailed than ours and 
focus more on how the logos should look than on allowable uses.

Check out the Apache trademark "nominative use" section and "specific 
guidelines" section in particular.

https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/

The "specific guidelines" in particular is what we are missing and seems 
very detailed and comprehensive.

- Jim*
*
On 3/24/16 12:52 PM, Noreen Whysel wrote:
> I reviewed the Mozilla and Apache branding guidelines and guidelines 
> surrounding use. For the my part, they are less detailed than ours and 
> focus more on how the logos should look than on allowable uses.
>
> I adopted some of their language to clarify non-endorsement and 
> included a new section on non-endorsement. I have it in a Google doc 
> that I shared with the board and shared the suggested changes via the 
> Branding Guidelines Discussion page on the wiki and posted links in my 
> Community Manager report for the Board meetings. I do recall a board 
> discussion re getting advice from Mozilla's lawyers but I don't 
> remember getting anyone's contact info. I'd be happy to reach out to 
> them if you can point me to those details.
>
> Noreen Whysel
> Community Manager
> OWASP Foundation
>
> On Mar 24, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org 
> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>> Your response confuses me.  I'm not so much concerned about this one 
>> specific incident, but rather, the bigger issue of Brand Usage 
>> Guidelines.  We went through this topic just a few months ago when 
>> discussing the Benchmark Project and some of the brand usage around 
>> it.  We talked about what we wanted to see out of these guidelines.  
>> We pointed at companies like Mozilla as an example.  We provided 
>> contacts to hopefully get some assistance from their lawyers.  My 
>> thoughts on this is that we need to re-write our brand usage 
>> guidelines and, if I remember correctly, that had Board support and a 
>> directive to Paul to make it happen.  My expectation was that the 
>> staff would come back to the Board with a new guideline in hand ready 
>> to go.  Not sure if others had that same expectation as well.  It 
>> sounds like we've made a couple sentence changes rather than an 
>> overhaul.  If the staff needs more support on this, then we should 
>> form a working group, but I feel like we need to make major progress 
>> on this sooner rather than later.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Noreen Whysel 
>> <noreen.whysel at owasp.org <mailto:noreen.whysel at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Josh,
>>
>>     We received critical comment from Dirk Wetter, suggesting that
>>     allowing members (individual, corporate and sponsors) to display
>>     our logo somehow constitutes a "sale" of the logo and should not
>>     be permitted. He used as an example a local sponsor of OWASP
>>     Germany that included an OWASP logo on their training flyer. The
>>     logo included text indicating the are a supporter of OWASP which
>>     in my mind makes a clear indication that they support us, not
>>     that we endorse the training. However, Dirk feels that our
>>     endorsement is implicit in any display of our logo. He goes as
>>     far as saying our logo should not be used on partner events and
>>     events we are cohosting either, which to me goes too far.
>>
>>     We need a balance between getting our image and links to our
>>     resources out their and protecting it. We could include a rule
>>     that says under no circumstances may the OWASP logo be used in
>>     advertising, unless it is for a cohosted event or partnership
>>     where a signed agreement exists.
>>
>>     Love to hear your thoughts.
>>
>>     Noreen Whysel
>>     Community Manager
>>     OWASP Foundation
>>
>>     On Mar 23, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Paul Ritchie <paul.ritchie at owasp.org
>>     <mailto:paul.ritchie at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>     Hi josh.  The short answer is we have made 2 update to the wiki
>>>     guideline language, and Norden has a third update change pending.
>>>
>>>     The red line of that recommended update is on the branding page
>>>     'discussion page'.
>>>
>>>     @Noreen,  please take lead to expand on this short answer, AND
>>>     take proactive steps to get community feedback then approval of
>>>     this next set of changes.
>>>
>>>     Thanks Paul
>>>
>>>     On Mar 23, 2016 9:04 AM, "Josh Sokol" <josh.sokol at owasp.org
>>>     <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Paul,
>>>
>>>         It seems that the question of OWASP branding has come up yet
>>>         again.  I know that we set you and Noreen off to redefine
>>>         our guidelines, possibly with the help of the Mozilla
>>>         lawyers, but I haven't heard anything for several months on
>>>         that.  Would you mind giving us an update of your progress
>>>         thus far?  Thank you!
>>>
>>>         ~josh
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Owasp-board mailing list
>>>     Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>>>     https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20160325/3740d9d3/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list