Fix it and upload an "unauthorised" version.

1. You get what you need.
2. You've 'done your bit', by sharing the fix with the rest of the community.
3. You throw the onus on how to proceed from there, back on the maintainer.

Upload a fixed instance of the module under the same name and with an incremented version number. It will be glaringly labeled "*UNAUTHORIZED*" and not fully indexed. But it is still available for download and adds to the demonstration of how CPAN currently stressing ownership far above collaboration interferes constantly with getting CPAN modules improved. Maybe those with the power to make even minor changes to how the CPAN infrastructure works will eventually respond to tons of "unauthorized" improvements being uploaded. So far, they seem pronouncedly uninterested in even acknowledging the problem.

Of course, i could always try and contact the original author and ask him/her if i could take over that module.

You could try? this is the first thing you should do!!!

Most authors would be delighted by somebody taking over their abandoned modules and it requires very little effort on your side, just writing a polite email.

I've asked this question here before. If you've taken the normal approaches, send an email to modules@perl.org. State the name of the module in your subject, along with a brief snip about how you have a fix for it.

In the body, clearly state what you've done to try to contact the author and how it failed (bounce etc) and how long you've been trying to get the software fix. The PAUSE people will give you 'maintainer' rights on the software after they verify your claims. Then you can upload the software with the same name into your PAUSE space and new users will automagically download your version.

You can feel good about this, as you've covered all of your bases... publicly in this case. If the original author returns, you know you were professional about the situation, and hopefully they'll either give you ownership, or incorporate your work into the project.

Update: email once, wait a couple days. If you hear nothing by then, email again. Those monitoring modules@ have lives too. They will get back to you though. Promise.

Update/Edit: PAUSE takeover FAQ. I believe I also got the email address wrong originally. According to the above link, it is modules at perl.org and not @cpan.org as I originally had.

I'm sorry but I really don't understand why people are suggesting an unauthorised upload. If you supply a patch in an RT queue then your fix is available to anyone who wants it regardless of whether the maintainer applies it. It's not uncommon for example for Perl modules in Debian to be built from the official release with selected patches added.

If the maintainer has abandoned the distribution you either care enough to adopt it and continue maintenance or you don't. Uploading an unauthorised and unmaintained module really doesn't help anyone.

Uploading an unauthorised and unmaintained module really doesn't help anyone.

Sure it does, it removes the hassle of having to sift through the bug reports, locate and apply patches

It is like an actual branch/fork, rather than a patch file

It is like an actual branch/fork, rather than a patch file

Since PAUSE indexer detects unauthorized release, it could notify the maintainers ( authorized authors ) along the lines

<FictionalDramatization>

Hi, author MARKSTOS has forked/branched your dist CGI.pm-3.50 , see it at https://metacpan.org/release/MARKSTOS/CGI.pm-3.51/

You can see what changed at https://metacpan.org/diff/release/LDS/CGI.pm-3.50/MARKSTOS/CGI.pm-3.51

If you like what you see, consider offerint this author an invitation to become a maintainer, his fork/branch could become official/authorized

</FictionalDramatization>

I could upload a patched, renamed version of the module. I've done this today. While it has the effect of bringing a fixed version nearly instantly to other users, it clutters the namespace and confuses other users.

As for confusing other users, why? Do you use confusing names? Do you write gibberish in your README? What is it what you do to confuse people? Really, CPAN is full of modules X that use module Y, Z and W. That doesn't seem to confuse people, so I'm curious, what do you do to make it confusing?

There's little difference between a module Foo::Bar::Baz that uses the functionality of Foo::Bar, extends the functionality of Foo::Bar, is a wrapper with a different API around Foo::Bar, does some aspects of Foo::Bar differently, or works around a bug in Foo::Bar.