Many organizations (including large commercial companies) "using the names" of different technologies in order to "capitalize on the recognition of ... names". One of the clearest examples is SQL (see http://builder.com.com/article.jhtml?id=u00320020604dol01.htm). Considering the authors position with JDO, this simply sounds like advertising for JDO by attacking another product. I would like to know if any of the "several organizations have requested that they change the name of their product" are NOT supporters of JDO in some way (as vendors, consultants, etc.), and if so who?
As far as the OQL claims go, Castor also makes it clear that they are still finishing their support. What isn't pointed out in this article is that Castor has NOT yet achieved a final release (1.0 version), and is still actively developing.
I started looking for a persistence layer a year ago (based on articles from Scott Ambler), and Castor was the best one I could find (free and open) at the time. Now that JDO has been finalized, I looked at switching over to the standard, but it is dominated by proprietary implementations currently. Until a freely available implementation is available, and relatively bug-free (ie at least as good as Castor), I don't see what the benefits of switching over are (except for the JDO vendors).