Soooo... The policy is that "all donators separately and independently happen to receive a version without a watermark, and this is not official even though everyone (for example, dhjohns just there) states it as a rule and a fact"? I mean, bigmuscle is certainly entitled to creating whatever licensing terms he wants, but why would anyone want something like this? What's wrong with openly stating the reward for paying? The current system is confusing until you dive into the forums for stories about donations, and accomplishes... what, that no one has to admit the full software is paid? Is it because silently watermarked freeware (and a "secret" private full version) would look better to the visitor than straight-up paid software? Really, I'm interested.