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

Sebastien Gioria sebastien.gioria at owasp.org
Thu Apr 4 12:41:58 UTC 2013


+1


2013/4/4 Antonio Fontes <antonio.fontes at owasp.org>

> Before giving my opinion on whether or not we should remove corporate
> logos from the website, I would like to get the following data:
>
> 1) Who is collecting/processing metrics on corporate logos? (number of
> impressions, number of clicks)
>  - on the home page?
>  - on local chapter pages?
>  - on conference pages?
> 2) What are these numbers?
>
> Knowing these numbers would allow me (and hopefully other leaders) to
> participate in this discussion based on factual data...
>
> kind regards,
> antonio
>
>
> --
> OWASP Switzerland, board member
> OWASP Geneva, chapter leader
>   skype: antonio.fontes
>
> On 4/4/2013 1:20 PM, Jim Manico wrote:
> > The only other place Apache allows for corporate logos is for conference
> > sponsorships.
> >
> > Example: http://na.apachecon.com/sponsors/
> >
> > I'm not a fan of logos on chapter pages, but my opinion aside, many
> > organizations sponsor a location for chapter meetings as well as food
> > and drink. We need these locations for chapters to thrive.
> >
> > So perhaps logos only go in three locations:
> >
> > 1) Wiki dedicated sponsorship page
> > 2) Chapter wiki pages
> > 3) Conference pages
> >
> > And let those be the only allowed locations.
> >
> > This means that we remove logos from the homepage, project pages and
> > project deliverables. (But we link to the main sponsorship pages from
> > these locations).
> >
> > Fair?
> >
> > --
> > Jim Manico
> > @Manicode
> > (808) 652-3805
> >
> > On Apr 4, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Seba <seba at owasp.org
> > <mailto:seba at owasp.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> how about the sponsor logos on the conference / chapter pages?
> >> they represent a significant budget to keep our events afloat
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >> Seba
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org
> >> <mailto:dinis.cruz at owasp.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     /(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
> >>     <http://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
> >>           o note that OWASP can change the content of any content
> >>             hosted on owasp.org <http://owasp.org/> , as long as the
> >>             changed content is released in an compatible license :)
> >>           o in fact anybody can start the
> >>             http://owasp-without-logos.org
> >>             <http://owasp-without-logos.org/> site with all content
> >>             from owasp.org <http://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)
> >>           o 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 <http://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 <http://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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >>     OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >
> >>     https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>
> >> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> > OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>



-- 
OWASP French Chapter Leader
GSM: +33 6 70 59 11 44
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20130404/18fa886d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list