On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Jean-Michel Pouré - GOOZE wrote: >>> I've been under the impression (based on the header in "should work" >>> list [1]) that it contains readers which work as expected and which >>> Ludovic has. >> >> The names should be then: >> * Unsupported. >> * Supported (and not should work). >> * Supported and reviewed (and not Supported). > > The good names depend on what "support" means in this context. I > don't know that. Do you? Maybe Ludovic can help clarify? > > >>> So please fix my impression and help others who would want to know: >>> how large is the sum of money one needs to pay? >> >> This information is none of my business. >> It cannot and shouldn't be posted in public. > > I disagree if I understand you correctly, but I am still not sure if > I do.. :) > > libccid is an open source project, so can be assumed to have an open > attitude. > > That said, things still cost money so if "supported" translates to > some kind of commitment from anyone in the community for that project > then of course there can be costs for listing a hardware as > supported. And maybe those costs are negotiated on case by case > basis, which is fine, but I see no reason to not make the process > public. > > I'm less interested in the sums involved since I'm no reader vendor, > but I am very curious to understand the process that you are > describing, because it doesn't really fit my previous understanding - > so maybe I overlooked something that you know more about, and I don't > think it's a problem to share that knowledge? > > >> Sure, there is a difference between supported and reviewed. > > "reviewed" is another term that I am now not at all sure if I > understand correctly in this context. :) > > >> But the users should know the difference and not believe that the >> only "supported" devices are those from vendor which pay. > > I agree that it is important to have good definitions of terms. > > >> Anyway, I am very grateful to Ludovic work. > > Me too! :) > > >> Are we really going to argue about that? IMHO, this is not >> interesting and I will not answer other emails. Sorry for that. > > I don't think we are arguing. It's good that you started this > discussion, because it seems to me that there is a misunderstanding > and I certainly want to have a clear understanding. > > > //Peter > _______________________________________________ > opensc-devel mailing list > opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org > http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
-- @MartinPaljak.net +3725156495 _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
