If the maker is active in the community, he will see it and will most probably talk about it, resulting in social exclusion of the thief, which is good for the community He will probably not be able to spread the map as much as an already popular map If someone unprotects it and changes the credits, the thing will fail because: Open Source results in a greater good for the community: an unprotected map can be improved by others. If the mapmaker wanted their map used for personal and educational purposes, they wouldn't have protected it.I'd personally argue that one shouldn't feel as if it was a 100% legitimate thing to do to protect one's map. I was actually thinking about making a case for allowing unprotectors for personal and educational use

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 29 2012, 4:49 pm by Azrael. There's no reason whatsoever to provide or advertise such programs on this site.Īs for this specific instance, I echo DevliN's question: Why would an unprotector include map protection that it can't unprotect? If it's capable of such protection, it'd be nice if the creator of the program could strip the unprotection features out I doubt that's a large concern of his though lol.

The people who would be experienced enough to be using unprotectors on their own maps also don't need help finding such programs. The rule is in place because almost all people who use unprotectors do so to infringe on the rights of mapmakers. There are other ways to deal with map corruption (a rare instance in and of itself), the best of which is probably backing the map up, especially before running it through something like Oreo which has a chance of corrupting it. Unprotectors are useful for accessing maps that have become corrupted or unreadable in some way.

Star craft maps