[Owasp-leaders] Proposal: Remove all commercial/non-OWASP logos from OWASP.org

Tobias Glemser tobias.glemser at owasp.org
Thu Apr 4 10:21:44 UTC 2013


Hi,

just wanted to add:

> *	it can be done since there are no 'real' contractual obligations for
> OWASP to put company's XYZ logo on the OWASP site
For the german chapter sponsorship this is false. One of the advantages for
a chapter sponsor is a logo on the chapters website. 

>From my point of view (personal, not german chapter, we didn't discuss this
issue yet): 

Yes, let's clarify how to deal with corporate supporters. But I don't think
it's good to remove the information of their support completely. We need
clear rules in which context we're happy to name our sponsors and we need to
define them. If someone or some company supports us, I don't think it's
false to name them, the problem is we didn't define how and where.

But you wanted a yes or a no. So for me in this moment it's a no, even if I
clearly vote yes to clarify this issue.

Br
Tobias

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:owasp-leaders-
> bounces at lists.owasp.org] Im Auftrag von Dinis Cruz
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. April 2013 12:00
> An: owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org
> Betreff: [Owasp-leaders] Proposal: Remove all commercial/non-OWASP
> logos from OWASP.org [ Z1 UNGESICHERT ]
> 
> (Resending this email, since for some reason I got a bounce from the email
I
> sent to owasp-leaders a couple days ago).
> 
> (I also blogged this at http://blog.diniscruz.com/2013/04/proposal-remove-
> all-commercialnon-owasp.html , and there are already a couple good
> comments in there from Michael and Mark)
> 
> Following the recent threads about the commercialization of OWASP, I think
> the time as come for a simple move, that will be a little bit painful, but
will
> clear the water and send a nice big message of what OWASP stands for.
> 
> Remove all commercial/non-owasp-projects logos from OWASP.org
> 
> 
> This move has a log of advantages:
> 
> *	it is generic so it doesn't single out anybody
> *	it can be done since there are no 'real' contractual obligations for
> OWASP to put company's XYZ logo on the OWASP site
> 
> 	*	note that OWASP can change the content of any content
> hosted on owasp.org , as long as the changed content is released in an
> compatible license :)
> 	*	in fact anybody can start the http://owasp-without-logos.org
> site with all content from owasp.org, expect the 3rd party logos
> 
> *	it will push the cases where sponsor-logos are expected to exist, to
> be placed in separate/dedicated 3rd party websites (like what happens with
> AppSec conferences)
> 
> 	*	and if there ARE execptions, they should be treated as
one-of
> exceptions (and be fully documented)
> 
> *	it will stop the current 'F1/NASCAR logo parade' that is the OWASP
> main page, and some of its projects
> *	it will stop the nasty and non-productive "hey that company
> shouldn't have their logo in that project" threads
> *	it will send a strong message that OWASP is about sharing
> information and all information/tools/projects that are 'donated' to owasp
> are supposed to be shared in a no-strings/logos attached mode
> *	it will clarify that the OWASP logo, name, tools and content CAN be
> used in commercial situations, as long as it is done outside of OWASP.org
> *	it shows a sign of maturity for OWASP, where OWASP doesn't need
> (anymore) to sell a bit of its soul in exchange for good content and tools
> *	it shows that OWASP's value to the corporate sponsors, is NOT a logo
> on owasp.org, but the amazing value provided by the multiple OWASP
> activities, events and projects.
> *	it shows that OWASP can learn from others, and in this case, follow
> (as Jim recommended) the Apache foundation example (see
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html )
> 
> There are a couple disadvantages:
> 
> *	Some OWASP leaders and supporting companies will be annoyed and
> fell that 'OWASP changed the value-added they would get by contributing to
> OWASP'
> *	Some OWASP corporate sponsors might even be so angry that they
> don't renew their anual membership
> *	Some OWASP leaders might be so annoyed that they stop
> contributing at all to OWASP
> *	This is one of those issues that has the potential to generate a
> gazilion of emails, with lots of opinions and no decisions in the end.
Btw, the
> faster 'a' decision is made the better (Yes or No).
> 
> I believe that OWASP today (April 2013) is in the perfect situation to
make
> this move. There is enough money to sustain any financial loss (which I
don't
> think will happen) and the OWASP projects are still in a state where a
drop of
> a couple OWASP leaders wouldn't have a dramatic effect (which again i
don't
> think will happen)
> 
> So what do you say, fellow OWASP friends, should we make this jump?
> 
> My vote is YES, lets get rid of the commercial logos in OWASP and start a
new
> generation of OWASP content and tools
> 
> Dinis Cruz
> 
> 




More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list