[Owasp-leaders] Suggestion of better brand guidelines

Dirk Wetter dirk at owasp.org
Mon Jun 13 17:55:14 UTC 2016


BTW, I added my suggestion to the discussion/talk section.

https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=Talk%3AMarketing%2FResources&diff=217765&oldid=210932

Cheers, 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)



More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list