Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 2014-04-04 03:17 (2014-04-03 21:17) |
| Message-ID | <030420142117558677%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (2h & 40m) > nospam Eric Stevens (3h & 25m) > nospam |
In article <vj1sj9lfdk8ld7ft2d2eoaomm0dlbeo958@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies do.SandmanEric Stevens
Haha, best joke of the day, Mr Clown Dictionary. You still don't know the meaning of words such as "protocol", "requirement" or what a "Photoshop Plug-In" is. Remember such fantastic quotes such as:
Tony Cooper 03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM <81qdi9p509anhalqskqa7cqu8d57g8412o@4ax.com>
'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'
And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.
there is approval for adobe to showcase a plug-in on their website but that's *completely* separate and not at all required.
2014-03-13-
-
