|Perl: the Markov chain saw|
Adding the requirement that outsiders may take over authorship and copyright of a module isn't a good thing in my opinion.
I'm at a loss to see where anyone suggested that this could/would or should happen?
I'll restate that I was not suggesting anyone should be able to "take over authorship and copyright". All existing copyrights and licences would remain in place and sacrosanct, as with any other OS code.
The idea was to provide a somewhat formalised mechanism for the extension and improvement of modules through the collaborative efforts of it's users, that maintained a continuity between the developments that would aid both the original authors; and existing and future users.
If the original author is unable to accommodate changes that users require for their use of the module, whether through
A somewhat formalised mechanism for forking the development would ensure not only that the collaborating users could find each other and achieve their needs; it would also ensure continuity of both authorship and licencing of the original elements of the module.
Not only does this help ensure that you don't get half a dozen unilateral forks by disparate individuals; it also allows future users to find and follow the developments rather than their being spread all over the Internet, (or worse, unavailable publicly!). It could also allow the original author to "keep a watching brief" on where the fork is going, and even offer consultative advice to it's progress.
There was no intent to impose extra restrictions upon authors, nor in any way diminish their rights. Just to formalise those rights and procedures already in place--to everyones benefit.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.