[Owasp-leaders] OWASP "branded" apps in application stores
jim.manico at owasp.org
Tue Apr 2 14:53:11 UTC 2013
> I like that model too, and that is something that OWASP should do (ban/limit all logos usage on owasp.org website)
Agreed. We still need to honor our sponsors, perhaps just move them to a dedicated sponsorship page like Apache? And for bonus points I'd also like to kill the banner ads.
> But again, that wouldn't prevent the commercial use (or resell) of OWASP materials by 3rd parties :)
I agree. Especially for BSD licensed OWASP projects, they are MEANT for commercial use. If folks on the outside want to use the OWASP brand in their projects, that's a fight for another day I think. I'm only concerned about how OWASP presents itself to the world for now, especially around projects.
Again, see http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs and http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html (particularly the section on "Present an independent face to your project")
> Dinis Cruz
> On 2 Apr 2013, at 15:30, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>> I *really* like how Apache handles this. They really thought this through and spent years battling the same issues regarding vendor neutrality.
>> Here are the basics:
>> 1) Sponsors of Apache and recognized on ONE page only: http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
>> 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
>> This seems to be a great way to fully recognize sponsors while still remaining neutral on a per-project basis.
>> - Jim
>> PS: See http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs and http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html (particularly the section on "Present an independent fact to your project")
>>> On 02/04/2013 14:48, Dinis Cruz wrote:
>>>> There is nothing wrong with using OWASP materials for financial gain,
>>>> in fact our licenses encourage that.
>>>> The only issue is if the material created are not public/open, which
>>>> in some cases is against the licence of the original material (Apache
>>>> 2 allows closing but GPL doesn't)
>>>> Now on the 'TOP 10 LogoGate thread' it is an issue of 'who put the
>>>> work in' and 'what is accepted by the community' :)
>>> The NASCAR like corporate branding of OWASP materials is both ugly, and
>>> unnecessary. There must be a better way forward. Branding is offensive
>>> and aggressive.
>>> OWASP is a charity - you don't feed children in Africa by first making
>>> them watch Monsanto, Kellog's and McDonald's advertisements so they know
>>> who their 'food' was provided by. Instead you tell people who care by
>>> pointing out your charity work.
More information about the OWASP-Leaders