[Owasp-leaders] New supporter logos

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Wed May 18 23:12:57 UTC 2016

>>To make this clear: I will rather swallow my keyboard instead of doing
this. In fact I am trying to fight those cases but to me it seems that
either nobody is listening or OWASP became a vendor driven organization.

I share Dirk's concerns.

This new supporter logo can cause more brand abuses because the uses of it
 has not being properly defined.

So far is a free for all, like Dirk said. This does not have yet a TM on it
and it should have it first before going to promote it . Also specify in
which cases can be used. Now it can be completely abused without OWASP
being able to have any legal framework to avoid this.

 If anyone is following social media,  rumour has it OWASP is a vendor

I think I'm an OWASP supporter, I'm not benefiting financially on (ab)using
the OWASP name cause in my country people even has no idea what OWASP is.
I assume those in US and EU can be more interest in (ab)use it.

The problem is that it misleads people into think that OWASP has an
'approval seal' on anything a vendor or individual does.

Are we promoting more our 'vendor neutrality' with this? I don't think so.

Now is a free for all. Good luck checking abuses. No legal framework right
now for control.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Dirk Wetter <dirk at owasp.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I am not often writing to the leaders list. Time has come though to share
> concerns with you.
> My trigger is the new supporter logo "strategy" which became public today:
> https://twitter.com/owasp/status/732921073025572864
> I considered the OWASP logo as our core value. I represents OWASP's good
> standing. Lot of people in the community contributed to build up our
> reputation
> and -- as a consequence -- to our brand. That is good. Most of the
> contributors
> were altruistic. That's how I understand Open Source.
> Now it looks to me we are giving our good standing away instead of putting
> strong controls
> at it. First question: Why do we need to do this? Is this because we feel
> the need to
> get more people to OWASP and we are somehow blindfolded not able to
> look at the consequences of a logo distribution? Or are there the
> commercial interests ruling here?
> Worse: the branding guide  (
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Marketing/Resources#tab=BRAND_GUIDELINES)
> is more or less still the same. I had some discussions warning that we
> should fix the bugs in the branding guide
> first before doing this. Heck, we don't even have a trademark policy yet,
> no legal constraint [1]
> This is quite the opposite as the speaker agreement -- by the way.
> To go into detail (attention, sarcasm)
> ============================
> 5. The OWASP Brand may be used in association with an application security
> assessment only if a complete and detailed methodology, sufficient to
> reproduce the results, is disclosed.
> ==> Cool, OWASP allows me to put their logo on my pentests. That certainly
> sounds good for my costumers also if I
>   present BS to him (well, if I care, I could describe the complete and
> detailed methodology -- but who cares! Nobody
>   can control it as my costumer will certainly has no interest to publish
> my report with his bugs)
> BTW: This could also be applied for tools.
> 3. The OWASP Brand may be used by OWASP Members in good standing to
> acknowledge a person's involvement in or a company's support of OWASP.
> ==> C00l. I edit the wiki, change a letter and I can use the OWASP brand
> on my website to promote my business.
>        Or I write a mail to the leaders list. Heck, in fact, as I am on
> this list, I made it and can use the OWASP logo everywhere!!!
> BTW: If a local chapter has corporate sponsorships like the global ones,
> vendor XYZ purchases this sponsorship
> for ten bucks, getting a logo in return and next exhibition he puts this
> as a sticker to his WAF. W00t!
> 1. The OWASP Brand may be used to direct people to the OWASP website for
> information about application security.
> 2. The OWASP Brand may be used in commentary about the materials found on
> the OWASP website.
> ==> 1337! I can still use the logo on my commercial web site. My idea is
> here is to sell a service or a product. But
>        if anyone reads it of course I will argue that I only intended to
> point to OWASP.
> Hopefully you got the message without feeling offended.
> To make this clear: I will rather swallow my keyboard instead of doing
> this. In fact I am trying to fight those
> cases but to me it seems that either nobody is listening or OWASP became a
> vendor driven organization.
> As a consequence I am afraid if we don't agree on a strong logo /
> trademark policy we are commercializing more and more.
> Where is "my OWASP" I used to love?
> Dirk
> [1] Even ISACA has stronger usage rules of their brand (not talking about
> materials!):
> http://www.isaca.org/About-ISACA/Licensing-and-Promotion/Pages/IP-Guidelines.aspx#usageRules
> --
> 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

Johanna Curiel
OWASP Volunteer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20160518/fbd9f956/attachment.html>

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list