[Owasp-leaders] Suggestion of better brand guidelines

Tiffany Long tiffany.long at owasp.org
Mon Jun 20 17:48:07 UTC 2016


Johanna,

The Brand and Marketing Discussion page
<https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Talk:Marketing/Resources> would be a great
place to talk about use case scenarios.  It has our current rules and as a
community it is a great forum to discuss any updates we might be interested
in.  I think the guidelines are pretty hearty, but for example, we have a
supporter badge now.  Is it worth discussing whether the 3rd guideline
should specify that the supporter badge be used by members rather than the
general OWASP logo when denoting membership or support in order to avoid
the appearance of OWASP endorsement?  That is a conversation with nuance
that might be important to discuss. This conversation needs to be had for
any project marks we decide to trademark as well.

I think we need a second set of policies to publicly explain how
infringement is to be handled.  It should cover who should be notified with
the complaint and what their first steps should be as the complaint
escalates.  This will prevent inadvertent ad hoc approaches when the
situation crops up and is required to prove that we defend our marks (and
thus actually need them).  I don't know where that conversation should take
place, but we soon begin it as soon as we move forward with the trademark
process.

Does that answer your question?


On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:19 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:

> Hi Tiffany
>
> Are there any specific activities towards defining clear policies using
> the OWASP logo?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Tiffany Long <tiffany.long at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Larry!
>>
>> I totally understand your concerns.  OWASP is an open source community
>> dedicated to the results of our projects and outreach.  Anything that takes
>> away from this would not be serving the community.  That is why I propose
>> that we update our guidelines and simply make sure that our codified
>> process for protecting our brand represents our needs and protects the hard
>> work of our volunteers.  With this in place the work of defending our brand
>> will be less time consuming as we will have legal protections and a process
>> that will reach for the law after several other steps have been taken.
>> Right now we don't actually have trademark protection and our marks can be
>> used unscrupulously until we do.
>>
>>  Furthermore, as you have seen from the co-branding work done by Kelly
>> Santalucia having our brand out there and recognized helps evangelize our
>> message as well as bring new volunteers into our fold. Over all this
>> process will help lead to further engagement and mitigate the risk of our
>> volunteers work being used improperly or diluted by less quality products
>> branded improperly.
>>
>> As to your enumerated questions:
>>
>> 1) No, absolutely not.  Branding helps us bring visibility to projects
>> and should a corporation use the marks inappropriately it helps us protect
>> them. The trademark does not interfere with licensing.  Think of it as
>> allowing us to protect our art and names. The actual product is not
>> affected except to allow us to ensure that the name is not used
>> incorrectly.
>>
>> 2) I do not yet know the budget that will be allotted, but the cost will
>> depend on what we choose to TM, and where we choose to do it.  For the
>> first steps we will only require the cost of fees to apply for a TM and
>> time from me, a paid employee.  We do not need a lawyer for the concrete
>> steps I suggested. Volunteer input in the process will also be necessary to
>> make sure we accurately reflect the needs of the community.  We will do our
>> best to strike a balance to make the effort as productive and efficient as
>> possible.
>>
>> -Tiffany
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:58 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Larry, Dirk
>>>
>>> I offered my support for this part to define clear policies with no cost
>>> at all. I have access to legal support and can help provide this.
>>>
>>> The steps took by the Stephany are the right ones toward protection of
>>> the brand but it is necessary to define better policies and process towards
>>> protection of brand abuse.
>>>
>>> In the end is about misrepresentation. Do we want vendor's to use OWASP
>>> logo in a way that should indicate endorsement?
>>>  I don't think so especially when we proc;aim, being vendor neutral and
>>> using the OWASP logo in commercial vendor activities to promote business or
>>> commercial activities should be clearly stipulated to avoid this:
>>> http://www.acunetix.com/blog/articles/owasp-top-10-2010/
>>> e <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVO0vmSW4AAgZ6M.png:large>specially this:
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVO0vmSW4AAgZ6M.png:large
>>>
>>> and a page that cannot be found after Dirk mention the abuse on twitter:
>>> https://twitter.com/drwetter/status/733744181340962816
>>>
>>> While I agree with many things you mentioned regarding lack of
>>> engagement, I think at this point of time OWASP has a brand to protect and
>>> should not really worry about lack of engagement and should establish clear
>>> policies regarding this.
>>>
>>> Protecting a brand when there has been clear abuse cases is not a waste
>>> of time, on the contrary, if we allow abuse, our vendor neutrality claims
>>> will go down the drain and loose credebility
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Larry Conklin <larry.conklin at owasp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is this really an issue that we need to drive time, and money towards?
>>>>> We have some much publicized cases in the past of abuse of OWASP name and
>>>>> branding being used by a commercial security vendors. This is not what we
>>>>> want as a community when we put volunteer hours into something and then
>>>>> have a commercial enterprise try to make money for themselves. I appreciate
>>>>> and support not wanting this type of abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> My fear is that we are over reacting to brand abuse with a knee jerk
>>>>> reaction. Yes, we have had complaints. The community and board so far has
>>>>> been able to resolve these. Now we want more polices, attorneys
>>>>> involvement, additional overhead and expenses? What will that really give
>>>>> us? Our focus should always be on Application Security and being an open
>>>>> organization.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Don’t fear lack of control. Fear lack of engagement. Lack of
>>>>> engagement is our greatest weakness. Money and time should go towards
>>>>> projects not more polices, legal fees, etc.*
>>>>> If we are not careful we might back ourselves into a corner. The end
>>>>> result could be a less open organization, more polices, with less money
>>>>> going towards projects.  In the past been able to resolve branding
>>>>> abuse with community and board working together.
>>>>>
>>>>> Open questions to community manager and board.
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. Does branding, logo's, trademarks registered to OWASP take any
>>>>>    rights away from project leaders or projects being open source?
>>>>>    2. How much money is being budgeted for legal, etc fees for
>>>>>    branding, logo's, and trademarks?
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry Conklin, CISSP
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Dirk Wetter <dirk at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Johanna Curiel
>>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Johanna Curiel
>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Johanna Curiel
> OWASP Volunteer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20160620/46b21432/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list