[Owasp-leaders] next steps

Andy Lewis alewis at owasp.org
Tue Jun 7 04:27:36 UTC 2016


+1  I strongly agree w/filing for a trademark immediately if we don't
already own it.  There are strong incentives for filing immediately, and
needless penalties for delay.

If the plan is to resolve this at AppSec EU in a few weeks, please do so,
pay to include one or more attorneys, and publish the results.

This has been a passionate discussion because we HAVE built a brand that
has a good reputation, and abuse of that brand by anyone tarnishes the
brand and therefore demeans the value of our outreach and our efforts.
Let's protect our property, achieve a decision on usage vs abuse, and get
on with our mission in a way that allows us all to feel good about who we
are and what we're doing.

Trademark first, policies second, open and transparent along the way as
always please :-)

@Johanna & Dirk - thanks.  There's a balance available somewhere between
outreach & abuse.  Thanks for pointing out that we may be out of balance.
I've been volunteering at OWASP in one capacity or another for 10 (!)
years.  I've been frustrated often, and angered more than once.  You are
making a difference.  Only you can decide whether it's worth the
frustration.  I hope you decide it is.

My 2 cents.
Andy

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Wetter <dirk at owasp.org> wrote:

>
>
> Hi all and especially global board members,
>
> to move forward there are also other steps which need to be done (no
> sequence suggested):
>
> A) Don't know whether anything has been discussed in May's board meeting.
> The agenda
>    doesn't look like it has been the case.
>
>    My request to the board: Pls discuss logo usage again at the next board
> meeting in June.
>    Pls check before who in the global board has used or plans to use the
> supporter logo. This
>    e.g. https://twitter.com/Proactive_RISK/status/732930631626264576
> appears
>    to me like a conflict of interest.
>
> B) Before any trademark and good usage guide is established the best would
> be
>    to pull the supporter logos. It seems to me we're doing the second step
> before
>    we decided properly on the first. A year to close this gap sounds not
> at all good
>    to me.
>
> C) Let's discuss what the benefit for using an OWASP logo for
>    externals is as opposed to the risk of commercialization of OWASP.
>
> D) Consult a lawyer, file for a trademark NOW (wasn't there s.th. wrt to
> USPTO?).
>
> E) Discuss my/other suggestions of branding guide overhauls
>
>
> Again: This is a basic question of how much vendor involvement we want. Be
> assured
> if there are gaps in the guidelines/no-existing trademarks, some vendors
> will always
> try to use those gaps. Their agenda is making money and if we do not
> clearly define our
> red line others will interpret it in a way they like.
>
> I do not want a future where every vendor can use an OWASP supporter or
> OWASP whatever logo.
>
> Thx, Dirk
>
>
>
> Am 06/06/2016 um 05:33 PM schrieb Dirk Wetter:
> > 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.
> >
> > Suggestion:
> >
> > --snip
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --snap
> >
> > I was replacing brand by logo. I haven't seen @
> > https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Marketing/Resources#tab=BRAND_GUIDELINES
> > 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20160606/17ab8bd1/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list