• On BNET: 3 worst things about the iPhone 3G S
June 3, 2008 7:18 AM PDT

Facebook adopts the CPAL poison pill

by Matt Asay

I suppose it was too much to expect Facebook to adopt a permissive open-source license for its application platform. It's too bad, as it had the chance to forestall growth from Ning, Ringside, and other social networking upstarts by making competition impractical.

Instead, by choosing CPAL, Facebook has ensured that it can be open source without anyone actually using its source. Was that the intent?

As OStatic explains, CPAL requires display of an attribution notice on derivative works. This practice, which effectively requires downstream code to carry the original developer(s)' logo, came to be known as "badgeware." It was approved by the OSI but continues to be viewed with suspicion within the open-source community.

I've written before about how most open-source licenses don't apply themselves well to the networked economy. Only the OSL, AGPL, and CPAL contemplate web-based services. It's not surprising that Facebook opted for one of these licenses, but I am surprised it chose the one least likely to lead to developers actually modifying the Facebook platform.

If the point was to protect the Facebook platform from competition (i.e., derivative works), Facebook chose a good license. If it was to encourage development, it chose the wrong license.

But if the purpose was to prevent modifications of the platform, why bother open sourcing it at all?

For more traditional software projects, customers derive value from being able to modify the source code. But Facebook's customers are unlikely to do so, and now its partners (and competitors) won't do so, either. CPAL may make sense in some contexts, but I'm not sure this is one of them, unless Facebook actually intends for no one to modify its source code....

Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Recent posts from The Open Road
What soccer team would your company be?
Open-source licensing: Your mileage may vary
Open source to shape cloud computing, but not dominate it
Off-topic: Why can't I have this job?
Legalized drugs, now open source. Those crazy Dutch!
Will 'good enough' virtualization topple VMware?
Linux community codes around Microsoft's FAT patents
As Mozilla 'upgrades the Web,' Microsoft must upgrade its pace
Add a Comment (Log in or register)
by jcorshen June 4, 2008 4:31 PM PDT
Is this article saying that developers will not modify the source code simply because they do not want to have attribution on their resulting site? While MySpace may not want the Facebook logo on its site, I do not see why I would care if my new site had this logo. What am I missing here?
Reply to this comment
advertisement

Making sense of Windows 7 upgrades

faq The basics and the fine print on Microsoft's options for those eyeing the next operating system from Redmond.
• Full Windows 7 coverage

Road Trip 2009: Big Sky Country

CNET News reporter Daniel Terdiman takes his car full of gadgets to the Rockies and the Great Plains in search of tech, science, nature, and more.
• America's Fortress: Cheyenne Mountain

About The Open Road

Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to the Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is general manager of the Americas division and vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Open Road topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right