[Owasp-leaders] Suggestion of better brand guidelines
dirk at owasp.org
Mon Jun 13 17:55:14 UTC 2016
BTW, I added my suggestion to the discussion/talk section.
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:
>> > 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 . Same with the logo. Giving a logo away is like
>> 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.
>> 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