Michael G Schwern writes: > I use the term "common carrier" [1] because it has a very special > meaning. > > [1] "common carrier" is a legal idea from common US/UK law. I don't > want to get into the legal mumbo jumbo because we're not lawyers, but > invoking the idea is useful and powerful.
OK, so you're talking about Cpan being something morally equivalent to a common carrier, rather than an actual common carrier in the legal sense? > It is the difference between just transporting sealed packages and > not. Once you peek inside them and get involved in their business, > for whatever reason, you are no longer a common carrier. This is a > whole different ball game. Indeed. But if Cpan is only _like_ a common carrier, then it never actually had common carrier protection in law in the first place -- so surely it can't lose it? Smylers
