* Stefan Seifert <n...@detonation.org> [2016-03-23 16:30]: > Now if the original author decides to no longer publish her code, > that's absolutely fine. I just don't get why CPAN should follow suite > and do the same. We don't demand this of BackPAN and we don't demand > the same from other users who trusted the license. Why is CPAN > literally the only entity that should go beyond the license and do the > author's bidding?
CPAN is not the only entity that does this, PAUSE does the same. And it is clear that PAUSE must allow this: users must have control over what is published under their name. Presently, CPAN is defined semantically as the superset of all PAUSE accounts. Therefore it must give users as much control as PAUSE does. If CPAN were semantically a subset of BackPAN, then your argument would hold. I don’t know whether that can be done though. More importantly I’m not sure it *should* be done; I’m certain there will be ramifications to liberties and powers of users (on all sides) that I am not currently lucid enough to grasp, much less outline. If anyone is serious about trying this, it probably ought to be built as new infrastructure alongside the old – a faux CPAN mirror indexed off of BackPAN basically –, while live CPAN would remain unchanged for the time being. This way, the idea could be explored in a low-stakes environment. If such a prototype proves workable then people could consider how to go about evolving the “real” CPAN toward this shape. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
