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?

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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

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.

The open source band wagon needs filter its passengers.

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