[Owasp-leaders] OWASP "Certification"

Dinis Cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Wed Jul 3 20:07:58 UTC 2013


The problem is that we change the social contract from a 'community/respect
enforced brand' to a 'economically enforced brand'

And you could literally 'buy owasp'

I actually think we need more community use of our brand (including
commercial use), but that should happen because somebody wants to use the
OWASP brand , not because they paid for it.

The solution is to reward the good uses of the brand, and ignore/shame the
abuses (and BTW, the abuses are good because they show what not to do :) )

But if you still don't buy it, what about this: how much would you charge
for a high profile logo on the OWASP Top 10 docs?

What about the naming rights of that doc? Maybe for 20k USD we could have
the 'CompanyX OWASP Top 10'? After all if we ate going to sell the OWASP
brand, there are lots of assets to sell

We should be worried by the lack of use of the OWASP brand, instead we
constantly try to beat the head of the few brave ones that try to use it

Dinis
On 3 Jul 2013 18:30, "Dennis Groves" <dennis.groves at owasp.org> wrote:

> On 3 Jul 2013, at 5:52, Dinis Cruz wrote:
>
> Dennis you are wrong with your logic. Ironically if we sold the use of the
> OWASP brand, it would actually increase its abuse, since it would
> legitimise the bad behaviour.
>
> Dinis, with all due respect, it is you who are actually committing a
> logical fallacy! It is known as the 'slippery slope<http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html>
> :'
>
> 1) If we sell the use of the brand
> 2) then increased brand abuse will happen
> 3) therefore selling the brand must not happen
>
> This sort of reasoning is fallacious because there is no reason to believe
> that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for
> such a claim.
>
> Because of this fallacy I can easily argue a counter point such as:
>
> "Given with our enormously large watch dog community, and our increasingly
> litigious society, brand abuse would actually decrease if we license it
> because corporations would not want to be sued for brand usage violations."
>
> This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the
> strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps
> between antecedents, and directly proportional to the causal strength of
> the connections between adjacent steps.
>
> *In any event this entirely misses the point. My hypothesis is: OWASP
> misses numerous ways to capitalise on the community intellectual property
> that we could and should be capturing to further strengthen and support
> OWASP in its mission.*
>
> Cheers,
> ------------------------------
>
> Dennis Groves <http://about.me/dennis.groves>, MSc
> Email me <dennis.groves at owasp.org> or schedule a meeting<http://goo.gl/8sPIy>
> .
>
> "Unless someone like you...cares a whole awful lot...nothing is going to
> get better...It's not." -- The Lorax
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20130703/27201cd9/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list