Making Light :: "Open Source Media" :: comments

"Open Source Media"

About as "open source" as Microsoft Excel, as it turns out....

"Open Source Media" -- comment #1 from dm

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:57:01 -0500

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?

]]>

Posted November 16, 2005 3:57 PM by dm

"Open Source Media" -- comment #2 from Tim Kyger

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:22:56 -0500

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

]]>

Posted November 16, 2005 6:22 PM by Tim Kyger

"Open Source Media" -- comment #3 from JC

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:43:21 -0500

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

]]>

Posted November 16, 2005 8:43 PM by JC

"Open Source Media" -- comment #4 from protected static

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:57:57 -0500

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...

]]>

Posted November 16, 2005 10:57 PM by protected static

"Open Source Media" -- comment #5 from Bob Oldendorf

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:25:03 -0500

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.

]]>

Posted November 16, 2005 11:25 PM by Bob Oldendorf

"Open Source Media" -- comment #6 from Dave Bell

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 04:36:13 -0500

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.

]]>

Posted November 17, 2005 4:36 AM by Dave Bell

"Open Source Media" -- comment #7 from Giacomo

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:10:33 -0500

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?)

]]>

Posted November 17, 2005 5:10 AM by Giacomo

"Open Source Media" -- comment #8 from Josh Jasper

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:12:45 -0500

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.

]]>

Posted November 17, 2005 7:12 AM by Josh Jasper

"Open Source Media" -- comment #9 from Keith Kisser

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:54:16 -0500

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

]]>

Posted November 17, 2005 10:54 AM by Keith Kisser

"Open Source Media" -- comment #10 from Clark E Myers

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:11:46 -0500

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.

]]>

Posted November 17, 2005 4:11 PM by Clark E Myers

"Open Source Media" -- comment #11 from Jeremy

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:55:53 -0500

The open source band wagon needs filter its passengers.

]]>

Posted November 22, 2005 12:55 AM by Jeremy

"Open Source Media" -- comment #12 from Clark E Myers

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:05:57 -0500

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

]]>

Posted November 22, 2005 12:05 PM by Clark E Myers