Have They Considered, Like, Googling "Open Source"?

Julian Sanchez | November 18, 2005

Via The Agitator comes an amusing observation about the newly launched Pajamas Media/Open Source Media/OSM blogger collective over at The Talent Show. A pretty standard definition of open source in the software context characterizes it as "software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees." And here's OSM's policy:

You may not reproduce, distribute, copy, publish, enter into any database, display, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any part of this site. The only exceptions to this are that you may download material from Our Site for your own personal use, provided such download is limited to making one machine readable copy and/or one print copy that limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. No other use of the content of Our Site is permitted. Please contact our Sales Department if you wish to have rights other than those stated above.

Not an unreasonable policy—but if that's how you're gonna roll, "Open Source Media" is about as apt a moniker as "Ministry of Love."

Comments

|11.18.05 @ 2:17PM|#

And if you Google "Open Source Media" you'll also find, on the first page of results, that one or two other groups were already using that name. Oops!

|11.18.05 @ 2:21PM|#

It's a really, really dumb name.

|11.18.05 @ 2:24PM|#

Papaya: Yes, but apparently they were too dumb to do that. There's a doin's transpirin'!

damian|11.18.05 @ 2:35PM|#

cobblers is all i've got to say to it. not impressed

|11.18.05 @ 2:38PM|#

Not an unreasonable policy�but if that's how you're gonna roll, "Open Source Media" is about as apt a moniker as "Ministry of Love."

Well, it's not like anyone can sue them for using it.

|11.18.05 @ 2:43PM|#

...their expansive 'copyright' assertions directly contradict public "Fair Use" provisions of Federal Copyright Law {USC Title 17; Section107}

|11.18.05 @ 2:58PM|#

this is about what I would expect from a Glenn Reynolds's vehicle.

cleary their strategy for buzz and links was to heighten the suckitude.
Springtime for Hitler indeed! heh!

|11.18.05 @ 2:59PM|#

Ha!

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/005477.html#5477

They said another "Open Source" site agreed to let them use the name. The other site didn't.

theOneState|11.18.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Wow, what a great story to be able to blog...controversy, legal questions, investigative reporting by bloggers, secret editing of blog content to correct glaring errors...I feel like reading more about this. I bet the Instapundit is all over it!

|11.18.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Well, it's not like anyone can sue them for using it.

Technically, I'm not a big fan of OSS. But the term "Open Source" should be protected, with or without litigation from a plaintiff. "Open Source" *is* the commonly accepted trade-phrase for the GNU and BSD licensing agreements.

theOneState|11.18.05 @ 3:09PM|#

Curious...Instapundit has nothing. Hold on...I bet RogerLSimon will have some great independent reporting on this!

|11.18.05 @ 3:53PM|#

Hey, I don't mean to drop one of those posts that leaves everyone with a kind of 'Huh?' feeling... but here goes.

The Open Source Media moniker... aren't they really doing a play on words, not so much leaning towards the software definition, but the media defnintion as an information 'source'? The 'open source' being catchy because it sounds kind of... post millenniumy and techie? Ie, aimed at 'the new generation'?

|11.18.05 @ 3:55PM|#

come to think of it, if you were gonna make an 'open source' media outlet, wouldn't it have to be like a Wiki?

Oh that'd be fun. Real fun.

|11.18.05 @ 4:12PM|#

come to think of it, if you were gonna make an 'open source' media outlet, wouldn't it have to be like a Wiki?


Paul,

The term "Open Source" (a proper name, I suggest) refers to computer science algorithms and the source code under GNU-type licenses, not content.

The Wikipedia is content, not algorithm.

|11.18.05 @ 4:19PM|#

Jdog:
The term "Open Source" (a proper name, I suggest) refers to computer science algorithms and the source code under GNU-type licenses, not content.

The Wikipedia is content, not algorithm.

Jdog... ahem, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I know what the software definition of open source is... I'm a professional software engineer. So I have stumbled backwards across the term here and there.

I know wiki is content, not algorithm. That's the point. Media companies provide 'content'. Wikipedia is an 'open content' encylopedia. My suggestion was, that if a media company were to provide a service that was 'open', ie usable, modifiable etc., then it would be like CNN's web page becoming a Wiki.

But maybe I referenced myself into a corner.

|11.18.05 @ 4:33PM|#

Paul,

The Wikipedia is way cool. I have no problem with the phrase "open content" or "open media".

Perhaps I am just doing a lackluster job of defending the term "Open Source". This term has a very specific meaning to a lot a people. Even though I am less than enthusiastic about the OSS products I have used, I have to give them their props: the specific term "Open Source" is theirs.

|11.18.05 @ 4:53PM|#

come to think of it, if you were gonna make an 'open source' media outlet, wouldn't it have to be like a Wiki?

You mean like WikiNews?

|11.18.05 @ 6:01PM|#

Even though I am less than enthusiastic about the OSS products I have used, I have to give them their props: the specific term "Open Source" is theirs.

I too am skeptical of OSS products. However, I think part of the problem is the OSS community has overhyped itself, and therefore set themselves up for a fall.

IN the end, OSS is simply one method of licensing a product- nothing more. The OSS community tried to convince us that like communism, it was a specter hovering over the world of software development, and like it or not, OSS was going to be 'the way'. Shyah. Some OSS is great, a lot of it sucks- you know, just like regular source...

Rimfax:

Well, shut my mouth. You know, I 'knew' about this site, but I never considered it while I typed my comments above. Cognitive disconnect, I guess. So, is Wikinews as trustorthy as Wikipedia (insert your own interpretation of my comment here: __________________________________________________)

theOneState|11.18.05 @ 6:03PM|#

Geeze, these people have big problems. Their logo is like a software logo, not a news logo. Then there's this ("Compiled by OSM staff in Los Angeles"):

According to OSM News, a new tape attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarkawi threatens Jordan's King Abdullah. No blog response yet... Meanwhile, Iran has resumed uranium conversion.

"According to OSM News?" Uh-huh...OSM News has learned from OSM news that al-Zarkawi has released a new album. They have reporters on the ground, see? And a contrarian spelling policy to boot.

It's weird to see them take everything these guys brag about in blogs and make it all go away in favor of anonymous, profit-driven, unsourced, unaccountable re-hashing of mainstream news.

And this is precious, attached to the above story: "No blog response yet." Really? No blogger anywhere has picked this up? Or no OSM blogger? Because, you know, that's not the same thing.

Still, I'm glad that the days of VC funding for as-yet-undefined ideas is back.

|11.19.05 @ 1:16AM|#

Julian, go have a beer.

|11.19.05 @ 1:13PM|#

Yea, it's a misuse of language, even if you aren't for open source in the first place. The term has a specific meaning. Still anyone is free to misuse language however they like and I'm free to begin the process of losing my respect right there, before I've even glanced at the content yet.

"The 'open source' being catchy because it sounds kind of... post millenniumy and techie?"

Because it IS techie and has a specific techie meaning.

|11.19.05 @ 1:17PM|#

Not to mention that they automatically alienate those who are strongly for open source. Maybe that's not their crowd anyway, still alienation at the point of reading the title can't be good. They alienate me at the point of basterdizing language.

|11.19.05 @ 3:38PM|#

Open Source means the source is open for people to view. There are many different types of licenses from:

- "you can just look, but nothing else" to

- "If you use it you must open Source what you make" (GPL - the most disgusting license) to

- "you can look and use it for whatever you want but if you change it you have to publish the changes" (LGPL) to

- an Apache style license which says "take a look and do with it what you want" (the best OS license - http://apache.org).

To the people who think OS software is not that good, well... you do not know what you are talking about.

frankwolftown|11.20.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Hey, come on. This is still a waaaaaaaaaay better start than when Air America went on the radio.