[Owasp-leaders] Suggestion of better brand guidelines

Dirk Wetter dirk at owasp.org
Mon Jun 6 15:33:36 UTC 2016

Hi Liam and all,

Am 05/20/2016 um 06:38 PM schrieb Liam Smit:
> Hi Dirk
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Dirk Wetter <dirk at owasp.org <mailto:dirk at owasp.org>> wrote:
>     Am 05/20/2016 um 05:07 PM schrieb johanna curiel curiel:
> <snip> 
>     > Abuses will happen where financial gain is.If putting this logo can help me sell...well you bet the first ones happy will be the vendors.
>     > Contrast did that with OWASP benchmark publicising OWASP logo 'sponsored by' even the DHS logo.
>     > https://twitter.com/jctechno/status/672079500033814528
>     Ok, a TM would have helped here maybe.
>     But in general this is why I think giving away a supporter logo is not good either -- the
>     only point where we have
>     a different stance so far:
>     My firm belief is if you give a away a logo you can't control the usage. It's like putting
>     a vulnerable
>     web application in the internet. Somebody will find and hack/abuse it. It also doesn't
>     matter if a law is
>     saying that it shouldn't been hacked [1]. Same with the logo. Giving a logo away is like
>     announcing
>     a vulnerable web app to all bad guys. So a supporter logo could be an invitation to abuse
>     (ideas see my first mail).
>     Also I do not understand the point in the first place: Why do we want to give a away a
>     logo? What's
>     our added benefit?
>     Thus I find a very strict logo policy accompanied with a proper TM the right thing to do.
>     There's
>     still potential for abuse but at least you did the best reasonably possible..
>     Look at ISACA. You can't use the logo without written consent by ISACA.
> Why don't you put forward a strict logo use policy?
> Obviously it might not be adopted if most people prefer a looser logo usage policy but if you
> don't put anything forward then I highly doubt anything will come of you merely stating your
> preference for a strict usage policy.

fair enough.

Not so many people responded, so I wanted to limit my investment in terms of time.



The OWASP logo (future: is a trademark and) is the property of the OWASP Foundation.

* OWASP logos must not be used by individuals or organizations to promote commercial products,
services, or events such as conferences, courses.
* OWASP logos must not be used in a manner that suggests that The OWASP Foundation supports,
advocates, endorses, or recommends any particular product, services or technology.
* OWASP logos must not be used in a manner that suggests that a product or technology is
compliant with any OWASP Materials
* OWASP logos must not be used in a manner that suggests that a product or technology can
enable compliance with any OWASP Materials
* OWASP logos may be used by special arrangement with The OWASP Foundation. Requests to use
OWASP logos should be directed in writing to
  <fillinmailaddresshere>. Requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a compliance team.
* The special arrangement can be withdrawn by OWASP at any point of time.


I was replacing brand by logo. I haven't seen @
any definition of the term "brand". If that would be clarified we could swap that back.

Cheers, Dirk

German OWASP Chapter Lead
Send me encrypted mails (Key ID 0xB818C039)

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list