Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/05/2014 15:46 (04/05/2014 15:46) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlk02d4.a9i.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | Savageduck (31m) Tony Cooper (1h & 40m) > Sandman |
In article <brsvj9pmh7trf7b2gqr8sg980rb4qn8qne@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:
Except, of course, from you, who said that the plugins are "approved" for "use with Photoshop" - as opposed to "featured in Adobe's Marketplace showroom".nospamSandman
Tony Cooper 03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM <hgn8i9pp0requhve7bt09eubvstel0ig44@4ax.com>"they can approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for Photoshop. The plugins on that page are evidently plugins that Adobe has approved for use with Photoshop."
it doesn't.all you need to do is download the photoshop sdk, write whatever plug-in you want and offer it for sale. adobe doesn't even have to know about it.Tony Cooper
I don't know why you keep repeating this point. No one is contesting it. We all know that anyone can write a plug-in for Photoshop or LR and make that plug-in available to anyone without Adobe's knowledge or consent.What is at question is only what you should call it.Sandman
According to whom?And where is the approval process "for use with Photoshop", Tony?Tony Cooper
No one, as far as I can tell, has taken the position that plug-ins must be approved by Adobe unless they are to be featured in Adobe's Marketplace showroom.
Quite the opposite, in fact. It's agreed that anyone can write a plug-in that works with an Adobe product and offer for free or for sale. No approval from Adobe is necessary.Unless you want it "for use with Photoshop", that is?
But it is your claim that only Adobe *can* call it a "Photoshop plugin" (with "can" interpreted as "allowed" rather than "have the ability")Sandman
And regarding the name of the software, maybe we can go on what others have called their plug-ins?http://css3ps.com - "Photoshop plugin" http://www.cutandslice.me - "Photoshop plugin" http://www.divine-project.com - "Photoshop Plugin" http://subtlepatterns.com - "Photoshop plugin" http://webzap.uiparade.com - "PS plugin" http://pnghat.madebysource.com - "Photoshop plugin" http://skeuomorphism.it - "Photoshop plugin" http://www.autofx.com/ - "Adobe Photoshop plug-ins"All made by Adobe? Or Approved by Adobe?Tony Cooper
You see, that's the question that the writers above prompt, and why it's wrong for them to call their product a "Photoshop plugin". Some might assume that "Photoshop plugin" means a plug-in authored by, or approved by, Adobe. That may not be the case at all, and probably isn't.
It doesn't make any difference how many wrong uses you find. All that shows is that people do it wrong.We have to first see some support for the claim that it is wrong, must we not?
Yet you can't support it. It's yet another one of your unsupported claims. I should probably make a list.Sandman
Tony Cooper Re: post processing 03/17/2014 <81qdi9p509anhalqskqa7cqu8d57g8412o@4ax.com>"Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"Tony Cooper
True, and I stand by it.
You are asserting that only Adobe can (as in "is allowed", because we have shown that it's not can as in "has the ability") call something an Photoshop Plugin.
You have provided no support for this claim.
I have provided counter-support, by:
1. Listing a multitude of developers that call their software a Photoshop Plugin 2. Showing a link to an Adobe page where Adobe themselve refer to third-party plugins as "Photoshop Plugins".
I'm a bit unsure whether or not you mean that only the company Adobe have legal right to call third party plugins "Photoshop plugins", where the third party plugin developers musyt change the order of the words and add a "for" to be legally valid.
And, as stated, so far you have provided nothing to counter this but meaningless words.
-- Sandman[.net]
03/13/2014-
-
