UPDATE: Open Source Radio complains (incredibly meekly):
In May we named our show “Open Source” and we named our non-profit production company “Open Source Media.” In fact, this used to be our URL until we decide to scrap the “net” and look for an “org.” But here’s the actual legal-type description of what we are:A joint production of Open Source Media Inc. and the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Open Source is presented by WGBH Radio Boston and distributed by Public Radio International (PRI).
What this means is that we are seven people in a rented office with, incidentally, a rather bold mouse who does not yet have a name. We make a radio show four times a week that uses bloggers as local and topical experts; this show is distributed to public radio stations by Public Radio International, and to truckers and early adopters by XM satellite radio.
So this morning I got an email from a listener with the following subject header:did someone steal your name?
Hm. A company that used to call itself Pajamas Media now calls itself Open Source Media, which is — scroll down to our legal notice — kind of exactly what we call ourselves. They’ve collected $3.5 million in venture capital, and, to celebrate their re-naming of our already-named name, they’re holding an event at the Rainbow Room.
Imagine if you were the venture capitalist who forked over this kind of money and now know, on day one, that they mismanaged step one.
Okay, I'm not going to talk about OSM for a while. I'll observe a circumspect silence out of sheer pity... the sheer pity of "a Berkeley house whore." Ah, listen to the podcast if you don't know what I'm talking about.
15 comments:
Indeed:
http://www.radioopensource.org/open-source-media-in-case-youre-confused/
Perhaps we should hold a contest to name the Open Source Media, Inc. company mouse. Using Mickey would probably be a bad idea, given the circumstances....
I've got it! They should name the mouse Roger L. Simon or Charles Johnson!
comic book guy
worst blog war ever
/comic book guy
The ZDNet blog is complaining about (the new) OSM. I'm not entirely sure what they are complaining about. I think they are complaining about the use of the term "open source". They are also complaining about them using the dot-ORG suffix.
Why did they use org with osm? They wanted to have an org-osm.
Uhm, it's Open Source. Open...Source... isn't the whole ethic of open source about sharing?
Why did they use org with osm? They wanted to have an org-osm.
I wonder how many visitors will cum?
Cheers,
Victoria
Those grapes are sour anyway, no doubt.
I do think that there are some jokes that only women can tell, and I think the one by Victoria fall in that category.
Is Cass Sunstein really that stupid, or is he simply being utterly duplicitous? The first five minutes of his comments are simply absurd - does he really think that Originalism calls for a repeal of the 14th Amendment?!
This, combined witg the persistent habit of conflating originalism with original intent (see discussion at Wikipedia article on Originalism) makes this pretty difficult to take seriously.
If I recall correctly, Lou Grant was famous for desiring Mary Tyler Mooregasms.
Loweeel said... Quick! Somebody call Ron Coleman!
Flattered, of course. I have to admit sounds like a fun one. And we are kind of hot right now! You know where to find us.
Actually I agree with ZD Net in that they're not adhering at all to the spirit of Open Source, and are simply trying to use a buzzword.
I wrote about it here.
Whether a trademark infringement claim will be made and whether they will be able to fend it off remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the naming was mismanaged, if only for creating this confusion and distraction. Why didn't they see it coming? What else have they failed to foresee? It is not confidence-inspiring.
When I rejected the offer they emailed me, I saw many things in it that undermined my confidence in them. I have criticized them and I will continue to criticize them, just as I would criticize things I see in MSM.
There is absolutely no reason to refrain from judging them on the basis of what they have revealed. That's what bloggers do, at least until they form an alliance that makes everyone feel that they ought to hush up and not hurt their benefactors. How many of you are cringing in fear that you won't get a link from one of the big men whose names are on this project? How damaging, then, is that alliance to the project of blogging! Your fretting about hurting these guys disgusts me. Don't you care about blogging? Oh, but how can you blog without their links? Pathetic!
Post a Comment