Edward Diener wrote:
he license is one thing and even the "Library Maintainer's Rights and Responsibilities" which Steve Watanabe links to in another post is another, but unless someone with authority decides that library X, being ignored by the maintainer, needs to be taken over by another who is amenable to fixes and changes, it is not going to happen. The main reason is somewhat psychological. If an end-user complains that maintainer X is not responding to requests about library X it will be seen as a derogatory put down of maintainer X. If a boost developer complains it may also be seen as a form of competitive envy. Despite your objection to Boost "leaders" someone has to take the bit between the teeth in order to effect change.
I think you propose not the best way to approach the problem of abandoned libraries. Suppose there's a formal procedure of taking over. Like, an email is posted saying: Library X is unmaintained. If you would like to take maintenance over, and fix the 50 bugs currently filed against it, and also fix all new bugs, step forward. Do you expect many people will volunteer? On the other hand, if fixing a bug in library X does *not* require any formal process and takes 5 minutes, it's much more likely that bugs will be fixed. I think we need to have an official "it's ok to apply patches everywhere" policy more than anything else. - Volodya