That was my impression also (the reasonable price). I had to decide whether to go for the standard edition or the pro. I've chosen for the pro. My applications use a number of libraries that are in APP-files. The pro-version enables me to 'molebox' those app-files separately and distribute them with different apps.

>Right you are, so I see, and it seems to be priced very reasonably. Thanks very much.
>
>>>Peter,
>>>I've been experimenting with Molebox a bit.
>>>I don't understand why, if I only want to protect a single VFP exe (which is were the intellectual property is), why do I have to enter the exe in the "Executable" textbox and also include it in the "Package contents" list too?
>>
>>That way the whole vfp-executable will be included in the moleboxed executable. Else, only a starter exe of 62k will be created. It is the workaround for vfp applications. I think it is this way because a vfp-exe is not like a c++ exe. It is a starter and the rest is 'data', rather than assembler. Just do it. It will work. Believe me. :)
>>
>>>I distribute about 20 files along with the EXE, all bundled in an Installshield installer. All I really care about is protecting the code in the EXE.
>>>
>>>Thanks for any suggestions.
>>>
>>>>>hi all
>>>>>Which is the best way KONXISE vs cryptor vs refox brand, for protact application sourse code,
>>>>>thanks
>>>>
>>>>I now use Molebox (Pro). Look at http://www.molebox.com/