[Owasp-leaders] New supporter logos

Larry Conklin larry.conklin at owasp.org
Thu May 19 12:49:38 UTC 2016


Johanna, I have to respectfully disagree. Yes, TM issues do exist. But that
said I believe the issue is at times as a community we focus way too much
of our time and effort on the downside of anything new or different. Bullet
proof TM policies or not doesn’t prevent anyone from abusing our logos.  The
same issue is for ISC(2) which has badges. Coke Cola, Xerox, Kleenex have
the strongest brands worldwide, with a huge cash pile and lawyers to
protect them. They are also in some form of ligation everyday with people
trying to abuse or encroach on their bands. Yes that is wrong but it’s not
every going to prevent someone from trying. Isn’t the saying “imitation is
the greatest complement”.

Also we as leaders did to be much more proactive. OWASP badges were no
secret. We knew they were coming. We even had a debate on the logo style.

My points is still valid IMHO. We need to step back and breathe. Every new
thing that OWASP tries doesn’t need to be wrap in a blanket of doom and
gloom. Yes there is lots of things and need to change, things that need to
be fixed. As a large community everyone is not going to work on everyone
else’s priority projects and nothing is ever going to be perfect.

Second we as leaders to be more proactive, we need to have much more active
discussion before an event and not afterwards. And we don’t need to address
everything as if the world is falling down around us.

I apologize if your email and Dirk’s was not in that tone but that is how
it came across to me.
Larry Conklin

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:08 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:

> me too
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> The problem is not the supporter logo.
>
> The issue is the lack of a TM and the lack of policies around the use of
> it, that can trigger brand abuses.
>
> I just asked my husband who is a lawyer and his opinion was that this
> should have been done BEFORE not AFTER the launch.However is not too late
> to provide a legal frameworks and policies around it but is going to cost
> money to find out.
>
> >>However, a major policy change will not likely occur before we've really
> thought this through and had some legal advice
> Exactly. I though this was going to be launched when  this was defined
> properly.
>
> regards
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Larry Conklin <larry.conklin at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure why but I got a message saying my original email failed.
>>
>> I think we need a new badge for doom and gloom. lol. Come on folks. We
>> are proud of what we do at OWASP. We are proud of OWASP. We are proud of
>> what OWASP has accomplish in the AppSec world.
>>
>> Why wouldn't we want to show some love? This isn't something new but it
>> is an emerging marketing tool. Today besides having an OWASP badge and can
>> get a badge from ISC(2) for my CISSP certification.
>>
>> I am not diluting ISC(2) brand, nor am I diluting OWASP brand by using a
>> badge. only thing I would be doing is showing my support in a visible way.
>> Oh yes I can also get a badge for Linux Foundation CII.
>>
>> Yes we could have a debate if badges really provide or increase
>> motivation or increase marketing. That would be a good debate. But I
>> haven't read one thing that says badges decrease a brand.
>>
>> Who is really at fault. it's not like no one didn't see this coming.
>> Dirk and Johanna your voice would have been much better at the beginning of
>> this conversation and not at the end IMHO. Take a moment, take a deep
>> breath. If you don't like the badge don't use it.
>>
>> Larry Conklin
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Larry Conklin <larry.conklin at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we need a new badge for doom and gloom. lol. Come on folks. We
>>> are proud of what we do at OWASP. We are proud of OWASP. We are proud of
>>> what OWASP has accomplish in the AppSec world.
>>>
>>> Why wouldn't we want to show some love? This isn't something new but it
>>> is an emerging marketing tool. Today besides having an OWASP badge and can
>>> get a badge from ISC(2) for my CISSP certification.
>>>
>>> I am not diluting ISC(2) brand, nor am I diluting OWASP brand by using a
>>> badge. only thing I would be doing is showing my support in a visible way.
>>> Oh yes I can also get a badge for Linux Foundation CII.
>>>
>>> Yes we could have a debate if badges really provide or increase
>>> motivation or increase marketing. That would be a good debate. But I
>>> haven't read one thing that says badges decrease a brand.
>>>
>>> Who is really at fault. it's not like no one didn't see this coming.
>>> Dirk and Johanna your voice would have been much better at the beginning of
>>> this conversation and not at the end IMHO. Take a moment, take a deep
>>> breath. If you don't like the badge don't use it.
>>>
>>> Larry Conklin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:12 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
>>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>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
>>>> ground.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20160519/b3f7df7e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list