Back to previous post: All beautiful and some obviously magical

Go to Making Light's front page.

Forward to next post: C4H12N2

Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)

November 16, 2005

“Open Source Media”
Posted by Patrick at 03:19 PM * 12 comments

About as “open source” as Microsoft Excel, as it turns out.

Comments on "Open Source Media":
#1 ::: dm ::: (view all by) ::: November 16, 2005, 03:57 PM:

I am a bit puzzled. Chris Lydon has had an "Open Source Media, Inc.", which operates under a Creative Commons license, for some time, now.

You can find it here.

Didn't these supposedly net-savvy Pajamedia bother to do a Google search before settling on their new name?

#2 ::: Tim Kyger ::: (view all by) ::: November 16, 2005, 06:22 PM:

About as open source, too, as Tor, I would guess.

#3 ::: JC ::: (view all by) ::: November 16, 2005, 08:43 PM:

The difference, of course, being that Tor does not call itself "Open Source Publishing."

#4 ::: protected static ::: (view all by) ::: November 16, 2005, 10:57 PM:

Another difference - last I checked, Tor didn't try to prevent someone from even quoting one of their works without express permission. IANAL, but it seems like that particular facet of OSM(tm)'s 'privacy policy' is pretty bogus (to be technical about it).

There are varying degrees of 'open' - in the case of these guys, their version meant neither free beer nor free speech...

#5 ::: Bob Oldendorf ::: (view all by) ::: November 16, 2005, 11:25 PM:

This shouldn't be a surprise: after all, they lie all the time, about everything. The 'Open Source' name is just the obvious next step for people who routinely appropriate nice-sounding phrases and then apply them to their opposites.

So it acts as a warning sign: everything posted on "Open Source Media" is likely to be just as misleading as their name.

#6 ::: Dave Bell ::: (view all by) ::: November 17, 2005, 04:36 AM:

I'll just, for completeness, pass on the point that "Open Source" has an older meaning in the Intel business, involving assembling data from published, unclassified, sources.

Which is pretty much what a lot of blogs are doing, forming an information-whole which is more than the individual parts.

It's being argued about in the comments on the report you've linked to. I suppose a great deal depends on just what open sources the Open Source Media outfit follows.

Done properly, it isn't about finding the truth by taking an average. Done properly it needs to take note of details which seem insignificant, and needs the application of better background knowledge than the average news reporter has.

If this outfit comes out as a retread of FOX News, I'll feel free to doubt it's being done properly.

#7 ::: Giacomo ::: (view all by) ::: November 17, 2005, 05:10 AM:

Dave, come on, in the introduction they refer to Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, so they are clearly trying to misappropriate the "tech" meaning of "open source".

(For completeness, I could also add that Stallman hates the term and would never use it, so they are doubly wrong in their attempts... but hey, do you really think they give a toss?)

#8 ::: Josh Jasper ::: (view all by) ::: November 17, 2005, 07:12 AM:

Well, they want a source of open bank accounts to pay them for political blogging.

I love that they've got Malkin on board. This almost guaranteas they'll get no fundng from any company with a Japanese person on the board or directors. Her connection with white nationalists is a thing of beauty too.

#9 ::: Keith Kisser ::: (view all by) ::: November 17, 2005, 10:54 AM:

Ugh. I'd suggest these idiots read 1984 but I fear it'd give them ideas; they'd rename themselves the Ministry of Truth.

#10 ::: Clark E Myers ::: (view all by) ::: November 17, 2005, 04:11 PM:

ESR has chimed in on his own blob:So yes, I’m not real pleased by OSM’s restrictive license, now that it has been drawn to my attention; I do wish they had either chosen a different name or used something like a Creative Commons license. But I’m not going to fight them about it. They’ve got a legitimate claim on the “spook” sense of the term, not the software sense.

#11 ::: Jeremy ::: (view all by) ::: November 22, 2005, 12:55 AM:

The open source band wagon needs filter its passengers.

#12 ::: Clark E Myers ::: (view all by) ::: November 22, 2005, 12:05 PM:

Excuse us while we change back into our pajamas
.... We are re-assuming our identity as Pajamas Media. (Just give us a few days to sort the technical issues out.) In short, the whole experience of being caught with our pajamas down has been a bit embarrassing, but in the end, when we realized we could get our beloved name back, we were overjoyed. So a warm, hearty thanks to all of you who expressed your displeasure with our phony identity.

Emphasis added

Welcome to Making Light's comment section. The moderators are Avram Grumer, Teresa & Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and Abi Sutherland. Abi is the moderator most frequently onsite. She's also the kindest. Teresa is the theoretician. Are you feeling lucky?

Comments containing more than seven URLs will be held for approval. If you want to comment on a thread that's been closed, please post to the most recent "Open Thread" discussion.

You can subscribe (via RSS) to this particular comment thread. (If this option is baffling, here's a quick introduction.)

Post a comment.
(Real e-mail addresses and URLs only, please.)

HTML Tags:
<strong>Strong</strong> = Strong
<em>Emphasized</em> = Emphasized
<a href="">Linked text</a> = Linked text

Spelling reference:
Tolkien. Minuscule. Gandhi. Millennium. Delany. Embarrassment. Publishers Weekly. Occurrence. Asimov. Weird. Connoisseur. Accommodate. Hierarchy. Deity. Etiquette. Pharaoh. Teresa. Its. Macdonald. Nielsen Hayden. It's. Fluorosphere. Barack. More here.

(You must preview before posting.)

Dire legal notice
Making Light copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 by Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. All rights reserved.