|Perl Monk, Perl Meditation|
If authorship and copyright are to be stayed at the original author, what are the "formalities" regarding authorship and copyright then?
If nothing else, ensuring that when the code is forked, nothing gets accidently removed that shouldn't. And, assuming that the fork was done using version control software, then any all all subsequent modifications, including any that accidently affected these issues, were recorded and reversible.
There's no reason why this mechanism should start with changing CPAN.
That's true. It could be done on sourceforge, or on another accessible server somewhere, or my harddisk, but that just emulates what already happens.
Equally, I or others could attempt to put together some mechanisms independant of cpan in the hope that they might be incorporated there at a later date, but that leaves us without detailed knowledge of the cpan infrastructure and we would probably arrive at something that was incompatible with it.
Even if we lucked out and came up with something that could be added, the chances are that it wouldn't be, because the incumbant denizens of CPAN would disagree with our choices of versions control software, or authentication mechanisms or whatever. You'd also get multiple, incompatible solutions developed in parallel, wasting everyone time and efforts.
... but there will still be people ignoring whatever framework you create ...
That's also true, but if there is no system in place, then everyone has no choice but to ignore it and go their own way. If there was something to ignore, then they would at least have the choice of not doing so.
I don't get it. I mention an "idea", and clearly label it as such, and you have already condemned it as being tantamount to piracy whilst simultaneously stating that the legal protections are already in place. You then suggest that the way to achieve collaboration is to do it yourself.
If CPAN is already so perfect, or so fragile, that even thinking about ways to change it are seen and condemned as heresy or sedition or illegal or immoral, then I guess it's best left exactly as it is.
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.