[Owasp-leaders] New supporter logos

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Fri May 20 05:05:42 UTC 2016


Be the change you want to see in the world. If you wish to change parts
of OWASP that do not satisfy you, then please do something about it or
shut the fuck up please.

Thank you and Aloha, Jim


On 5/19/16 10:19 AM, Eoin Keary wrote:
> Love seeing the passion when it comes to logos and identity..... Pity
> we don't see more of this when it comes to doing what OWASP was born
> to do 😜😠😍🙄🤔☹️😣
>
>
> Eoin Keary
> OWASP Volunteer
> @eoinkeary
>
>
>
> On 19 May 2016, at 15:03, johanna curiel curiel
> <johanna.curiel at owasp.org <mailto:johanna.curiel at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>> >>Every new thing that OWASP tries doesn’t need to be wrap in a blanket of doom and gloom. 
>>
>> Welcome to my world ;-). Have you any idea how often I launch ideas
>> that have been crushed by others in here, forgetting I'm just a
>>  volunteer? Well, some people have valid point other don't. We have
>> too keep moving fwd.
>>
>> My point is not against the logo. I support the logo.
>>
>> Is just that we launch this without having done the homework and
>> legal framework. What is the rush? We could have wait a little more
>> and avoid headaches. No one consult this properly.
>>
>> I think if you have been following Dirk's activities, he is tired of
>> preaching and not being heard, I have very often the same feeling too.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Johanna
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Larry Conklin
>> <larry.conklin at owasp.org <mailto:larry.conklin at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>             <mailto: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
>>                 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>                         <mailto: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
>>                     <mailto: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 <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20160519/0e092c63/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list