Open Source and Closed Source
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
| Related Tutorials | |
|---|---|
|
This page is here to document the debate between Open Source and Closed Source. Keep this article neutral, it is not here to convince anyone of one side or the other; instead, it is here to show the two sides' arguments and allow readers to make their own choice.
Arguments for Open Source
- Open Source allows users to learn from the map's design. They can open up the map and directly see how something was done, and duplicate that in their map or add to their knowledge.
- Open Source maps don't become stale and undeveloped, as anyone can open them up, make new changes and improvements, and continue the development after the original author has moved on.
- Closed Source maps can't be stolen on Battle.Net 2.0, as Blizzard actively polices maps and will act on any reports of stolen maps.
Arguments for Closed Source
- Closed Source prevents people from stealing maps and map assets. The original author retains the credit of making the map.
- Closed Source doesn't prevent people from learning about the map's design; people can contact the author to find out how he did something.
- Blizzard won't always actively police maps and act on reports of stolen maps on Battle.Net.
- Open Source doesn't teach you anything unless you already know enough about mapping to understand what you're seeing; if you understand that much, you should understand how to emulate the desired effect yourself.
- Open Source lets people see how to cheat and break your map.
Conclusion
Whichever you choose, remember to be helpful to any mappers that want to learn from you, and remember to credit original authors and people who helped you out with something you wanted to know.