You are correct about your interpretation of what “forking” means; but personally I think that Dave was just trying to be kind and offer AxCrypt an alternative to dumping Axcrypt 2 altogether and going back to a continuing the development of AxCrypt 1.7. Your other comments being invalid. I will be more blunt: you are making a big mistake – I will continue to recommend that they only use the
Like Dave, having been a user of encryption software since its first public implementations, AxCrypt the elder gave me more of what I want and need for data encryption in a reasonably user friendly environment. Axcrypt the younger was so obviously put out with improvements that should have been in 1.8 BUT with a completely different business model. If you look at the comments/reviews the downsides of AC2 are pretty much related to a business model need rather than a user functional need. It is hard for me to see that this software could ever provide sufficient income stream to support a family in Scandinavia. It does not need much functional change from year to year ( 95% of its function was present in version 1: so “new” versions are not a necessity except for every few years to keep up with changes to the OS. Not much interaction to drive donations I agree but I thought that was known and understood – the IP inherent in this product is all about its user interface so how much is that worth? Rather charge a nominal fee for version 1.8 which would include 256 encryption than pursue AC2 would be my recommendation. In the meantime I will continue to recommend v1.7 to my clients requiring a simple quick and easy but not as secure solution and 7-Zip for a less quick and easy but more secure solution. I do commend you from at least keeping the file servers going for AC1. At least you get some feel (along with counts from the common files servers) that the users still want and use AC1 for new installs.