Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2014-04-05 12:03 (2014-04-05 12:03) |
| Message-ID | <slrnljvlao.9me.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | nospam (52m) > Sandman |
In article <klruj95du5mkugpvq9dtc69aprnbdtli7p@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
It does, and it's not the same plugins, they are all different actual binaries (that sometimes, in turn, launch the same external binary).Eric StevensEric Stevensnospam
Ever heard of protecting a trademark?
calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is, after all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was authored by adobe.
Hmm. The same plugins will often run with Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, Irfan VIew etc. Does that make them Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, Irfan View plugins?
I.e. the plugin *file* installed into the applications are not the same. You can't take a Photoshop plugin file and put it in the PSP plugin directory and it will work. Tony once thought so (as did Savageduck) with regards to Lightroom, but after some research it turned out not to be true.
It's an important disctinction, since otherwise people might think the plugins are interchangeable. Many plugins are available for different applications, but they're not the same plugin.
You should see http://www.thepluginsite.com/knowhow/tutorials/introduction/introduction.htm which will give you some idea of why, when and how Adobe may restrict the use of Photoshop as part of the name of plugins.I couldn't find anything in this non-Adobe document that tells the developer what naming restrictions Adobe poses on the plugins. Maybe I just missed it, it's a big document. Would you please be so kind as to quote and/or direct me to the salient parts?
Thanks in advance.
-- Sandman[.net]
2014-03-13-
-
