[pepe56]

Hey ludde, I highly appreciate your work. Especially because there are no real alternative clients at the moment for Windows. Also from knowing the first utorrent versions (not the crap from nowadays) I believe you are able to produce efficient code. However I would agree, that the spirit of Wireguard is to encourage to keep code simple and auditable. That's what Jason highlights in his motivation. Having a closed source implementation on top of that feels a bit wrong and I find it hard to support this.

Why not go the hybrid approach and make it open source so people can understand and audit it. You could still ask for donations or even provide a compiled version for some dollars like http://www.blink.sh/

[vik_tor]

If I remember correctly, there was an issue that torrent-sites and other pages renamed uTorrent and sold the program after it was released, even though it was free and closed source. That is why it was stated in the about box that it is a free software and that you have to claim the money back if you have paid for it. Regular Windows users seldom research or have an interest about the origin of a software. If you imagine that TunSafe would be released as an open source at a time when the progress is in an experimental stage and the TunSafe name is not established, it would not surprise me if a lot of people and companies quickly release copies of TunSafe with a new name and hard marketing and ads to quickly get users. Without understanding the code or the wireguard protocol, and may not have the knowledge or interest to further develop or have a team that validates the code and fixes bugs. Since the wireguard protocol is officially not yet complete, I believe neither Ludde, Jason nor anyone who is passionate about the future of wireguard would like to see such a development right now.