Open Source Media?!? You guys are hilarious. From the "privacy policy" over there at (snicker) OSM:

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.

That's about as open source as Windows™®. What's more, you all stole the name from someone else!

“Open Source Media”: In Case You’re Confused.

And you all clearly are. Did none of you google the name before you decided on it? What a bunch of rubes. And you jump on Walcott for a typo? Too funny. Wow.

You aren't familiar with the concept of open source software from whence the name came from, are you?

"Open Source," in spirit, is the concept of people collaborating to build something. You put something up, and others judge it, and the give and take produces something stronger than any individual could on their own. We are a wide-ranging group of bloggers, some political some not, looking to build something together none of us could on our own. The name isn't terribly creative, but it is accurate, and hardly "stolen" in concept, but it might be a legal issue. I was quite happy with Pajamas Media, for the record.

The privacy policy boilerplate is standard for media organizations... and most other businesses, for that matter. Employed people would know that.

Walcott was not guilty of a typo, he used the wrong word entirely. He also cannot tell the difference between someone groping themselves and giving a "thumbs up" gesture.

Who is the rube?

Hey Chico, I just want to tell ya what a wonderful web thingy you have on this Internets. Never stop in your fight against the evil doers that hate our freedoms like MSM, Harry Reed and everyone that lives North of Manassas VA. Next time I take a 3 month vacation wanna come down and clear some brush with me partner?

Cuse me, Karl just found some soldiers to use as a prop for my next EyeRack speech, bye now.

You aren't familiar with the concept of open source software from whence the name came from, are you?

Obviously more familiar than you.

"Open Source," in spirit, is the concept of people collaborating to build something. You put something up, and others judge it, and the give and take produces something stronger than any individual could on their own.

Well, sort of, but not really. Open source is creating works (software) that others (users) can modify and redistribute. Organized and preplanned collaboration is nice, but that doesn't mean it's open source. The users of OSM's product are not free to edit it, reshape it, or redistribute it in any manner at all (plus there's even restrictions on how many copies we can keep on our computers(1)! Can I be sued for my temp directory!?).

This privacy policy, unlike the policies of many truly open source sites that allow their users to use and redistribute content as they please, is the opposite of open source. Microsoft collaborates within their company to produce a product that is better than one individual could produce. The product is still proprietary and closed source, just like OSM's.

The name isn't terribly creative, but it is accurate, and hardly "stolen" in concept,

It is not accurate, and the concept is dishonestly co-opted, and the name, not the concept, is stolen from another organization in the same industry.

The privacy policy boilerplate is standard for media organizations... and most other businesses, for that matter. Employed people would know that.

Cute assumption. But people employed in the software industry, as I am, actually know that anyone producing something purported to be "open source" would not have such a standard privacy policy, because it's antithetical to the philosophy of open source.

Who is the rube?

One guess.

you have your agenda, and would like to impose your definition of "open source." This may come as a shock to you, but we aren't creating software. It does not mean that your self-limiting definition is the only accurate defintion, and quite obviously, it isn't. Again, is isn't a name I would have recommended. I was satisfied with Pajamas Media.

Users of any news service can indeed edit, and reshape it to fit their editorial needs, using as much or as little as they need. Some information can be used via precis and Fair Use.

Calling the product of a bloggers, of all people, "closed source," as you do, is simply assinine. We're free to write about what we want, when we want, how we, want, etc, with no restrictions at all. How much more open source can you get?

You are trying to convolute the name of the company with the product. I would say "nice try," but it isn't even that, is it?

Nice tits. Butterface though. I can see why she has to grope herself when in the company of tiny penised chickenhawks.

Ah, you can always tell who the liberals posters are by their great wit and astute knowledge of language, can't you?

Thanks for being a great example, anon.

you have your agenda, and would like to impose your definition of "open source."

Not my definition pal.

This may come as a shock to you, but we aren't creating software.

And where did the concept come from? Your words...

You aren't familiar with the concept of open source software from whence the name came from, are you?

I am familiar with that concept, are you?

We're free to write about what we want, when we want, how we, want, etc, with no restrictions at all. How much more open source can you get?

That's called freedom of speech, friend, not open source. Wikipedia is open source. Openfiction is open source. Music under Creative Commons that allows listeners to remix and redistribute is open source. None of these things are software; they are all creative works, and they are all open source. OSM is not.

Open Source, as you define it, means either collaboration or freedom of speech, depending on your mood, apparently. I urge you to ask anyone who actually works in open source (try the FSM, Creative Commons, and Wikipedia to start), and see if their definitions are remotely close to yours.

You are trying to convolute the name of the company with the product.

No, I'm making fun of an organization that is misrepresenting themselves out of ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.

She sure looks like she is groping herself.

Anything that would include proven loons like David Corn has little credibility to me.

Might as well include a column written by the DPRK's "dear leader".