# Open the codebase



## ediskrad (Aug 27, 2008)

Two words to end all of FA troubles

Open Source.

It's evident that only a handful of programmers can't get it right so far. Open the code, put it in sourceforge and let the community collaborate. Even if it's just a bug here or there, a dozen programmers working a bit at the time is going to perform a lot better than just two or three working full time (and accomplishing little)

I say this 'cos I can't work full time on the code, but I can smash little bugs if I find them, report them and offer a patch. And I bet there's others like me too.


----------



## SFox (Aug 27, 2008)

Wouldn't open sourcing the site kind of make it by far easier for hackers to attack it?

If hackers had access to the source they could see its weaknesses and have an easier time attacking the site.


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 27, 2008)

Not that I really know exactly what goes on behind closed doors, but it appears to me that it has nothing to do with there only being a few people working full-time, but that no one is working full-time. The programmers FA does have aren't getting paid. This means they have to make money some other way, so FA is just a part-time gig, if that. I doubt they're going to put much effort into something that isn't putting food on the table. And, if it is the only programming job they have, then I'd begin to wonder why that is.

Personally, I think the solution to software issues is to find a way to pay the current programmers and/or hire professionals from outside the fandom. Part of the problem I see with anything fandom related is that furries seem to prefer insularity over functionality, as well as a dislike for anyone who actually makes decent money from within the community (hence the hatred of pay sites).

Just my two cents. Not that I'd really know what's best, seeing as I'm only on the outside looking in.


----------



## ZigZag13 (Aug 27, 2008)

somberfox said:


> Wouldn't open sourcing the site kind of make it by far easier for hackers to attack it?
> 
> If hackers had access to the source they could see its weaknesses and have an easier time attacking the site.



True, but everyone else has access to it as well, then the weaknesses can be found and stomped out just as quickly.


----------



## ediskrad (Aug 27, 2008)

somberfox said:


> Wouldn't open sourcing the site kind of make it by far easier for hackers to attack it?
> 
> If hackers had access to the source they could see its weaknesses and have an easier time attacking the site.



That's a common misconception. But as ZigZag pointed out, if everybody sees the bugs, hackers and programmers alike are looking at it. Plugging security holes happens a lot faster.

Firefox is a good example. As soon as a security bug comes out, a patch comes quickly after. Heck, even this forum is open sourced and works just fine :3


----------



## ediskrad (Aug 27, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> Not that I really know exactly what goes on behind closed doors, but it appears to me that it has nothing to do with there only being a few people working full-time, but that no one is working full-time. The programmers FA does have aren't getting paid. This means they have to make money some other way, so FA is just a part-time gig, if that. I doubt they're going to put much effort into something that isn't putting food on the table. And, if it is the only programming job they have, then I'd begin to wonder why that is.



Then there's even more reason to open the code. Instead of having 3 people working in their spare time, have the whole community of furry programmers working in their spare time


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 27, 2008)

There's already been a discussion thread for this, but the fact is that an open-source model of FA would cause a HUGE number more risks and problems than it actually accomplishes.

Sure, you open the door for a lot of skilled coders to help out (I might count myself among that group), but you also open the door to a good number of hackers, abusers, and unforeseen ways of abuse.  After all, the more people who know what the codebase looks like on the inside, the more ways they can hack around it.  What happens if some joker commits a patch that causes the site to overlay user avatars (or submission thumbnails) with goatse?  What happens if some user decides to expand the site's database with a "drop table pictures" ?  You can't exactly SVN the site's operational database against being hacked, and the added responsibility for admins to do damage control on the site's codebase is most assuredly stamped with a DONOTWANT.

Open source is a good thing for _software applications_ (e.g: Firefox), and with limited access rights can be good for some websites indeed (e.g: Wikipedia).  But it is not something you can arbitrarily propose for _any_ random website on the 'Net.


----------



## icehawk (Aug 27, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> What happens if some joker commits a patch that causes the site to overlay user avatars (or submission thumbnails) with goatse?  What happens if some user decides to expand the site's database with a "drop table pictures" ?  You can't exactly SVN the site's operational database against being hacked, and the added responsibility for admins to do damage control on the site's codebase is most assuredly stamped with a DONOTWANT.



Just because a codebase is open, doesn't mean that every tom, dick and harry is going to have commit access.


----------



## cesarin (Aug 27, 2008)

icehawk said:


> Just because a codebase is open, doesn't mean that every tom, dick and harry is going to have commit access.



considering how many trolls (and other general ppl on the internet ) hate furries, this is more probable than what you think


----------



## Rhainor (Aug 27, 2008)

ediskrad said:


> Two words to end all of FA troubles
> 
> Open Source.
> 
> ...


The current codebase *cannot* be open-sourced.  There are people, including the original creator of the site, who still own some of the code but are no longer on the staff; plus, there are *far* too many holes in the current code to make open-sourcing it a safe thing to do.

However, I believe the coders working on Ferrox have expressed a desire to make _that_ open-source, since it's all-new code.


----------



## ediskrad (Aug 27, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> What happens if some joker commits a patch that causes the site to overlay user avatars (or submission thumbnails) with goatse?  What happens if some user decides to expand the site's database with a "drop table pictures" ?





cesarin said:


> considering how many trolls (and other general ppl on the internet ) hate furries, this is more probable than what you think



If the project administrator is such an idiot to pick up the code from sourceforge and put it in production directly without any sort of checks, then we're all screwed.

Every new piece of code has to be peer-reviewed before it becomes part of the mainstream, thus eliminating bad code. The database will be a mock, test database, not a real one. Only the php code would be available.

So if any angst filled programmer sends a bug on purpose, with good practice, it does no harm at all. All it takes is following procedure, people. It works for Linux, it should work for a project this size.



Rhainor said:


> The current codebase *cannot* be open-sourced.  There are people, including the original creator of the site, who still own some of the code but are no longer on the staff; plus, there are *far* too many holes in the current code to make open-sourcing it a safe thing to do.



You mean they *don't want to*. And we all know there are too many holes. That's the whole point of asking to open the source. LET US FIX THEM!.

The website was down for a month. It could have been done during that period. Heck, it can even be brought down again during the first phase of fixing, should it be necessary.

If you weight the benefits in the long run, it's totally worth it.



Stratadrake said:


> Open source is a good thing for _software applications_ (e.g: Firefox), and with limited access rights can be good for some websites indeed (e.g: Wikipedia).  But it is not something you can arbitrarily propose for _any_ random website on the 'Net.



Wrong. This forum is open source. Webapp. All the way. And there are hundreds of web applications that are open source. Smarty, OpenCommerce, almost any wiki software. I think you're confusing programming with having admin access to the website.


----------



## Rhainor (Aug 27, 2008)

ediskrad said:


> You mean they *don't want to*. And we all know there are too many holes. That's the whole point of asking to open the source. LET US FIX THEM!.


No, I mean *CANNOT.*  The current staff does not have complete ownership of the code, and thus does not have the legal right to make it available to the public.



			
				ediskrad said:
			
		

> Wrong. This forum is open source. Webapp. All the way. And there are hundreds of web applications that are open source. Smarty, OpenCommerce, almost any wiki software. I think you're confusing programming with having admin access to the website.


The forum is using vBulletin, which is commercial software and is not open-source.  The only open-source forum software that I know of is phpBB.


----------



## ediskrad (Aug 27, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> No, I mean *CANNOT.*  The current staff does not have complete ownership of the code, and thus does not have the legal right to make it available to the public.



Nah, they don't want to. The current stuff does have complete ownership of the code. If you talk about Arcturus, I know he'd let it be open. He might be bitchy sometimes, but he's a reasonable person.

But you're already telling me they "can't" without even talking it with a real owner. 



Rhainor said:


> The forum is using vBulletin, which is commercial software and is not open-source.  The only open-source forum software that I know of is phpBB.



Sorry, my mistake. I didn't check. Still, doesn't disprove my point that there are lots of web applications that are open and safe


----------



## Rhainor (Aug 27, 2008)

ediskrad said:


> Nah, they don't want to. The current stuff does have complete ownership of the code. If you talk about Arcturus, I know he'd let it be open. He might be bitchy sometimes, but he's a reasonable person.


Arcturus?  He's not the problem.  Most of the current code was written by the site founder, Alkora, who still owns the rights to the code he wrote, to my knowledge.



			
				ediskrad said:
			
		

> But you're already telling me they "can't" without even talking it with a real owner.


I'm in the staff IRC channel, where the possibility of open-sourcing the code has been discussed by pretty much all the admins & coders, including the site's owner, Dragoneer/Preyfar.  When I say it cannot be done, I'm simply restating something that has been said by the admins/coders.

Aha, found what I was looking for:
http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=537547&postcount=5


net-cat said:


> There are several reasons the current site code is not open sourced and never will be, including but not limited to:
> 
> 
> The person who wrote it was a moron.
> ...


----------



## AndyFox (Aug 27, 2008)

ediskrad said:


> If the project administrator is such an idiot to pick up the code from sourceforge and put it in production directly without any sort of checks, then we're all screwed.
> 
> Every new piece of code has to be peer-reviewed before it becomes part of the mainstream, thus eliminating bad code. The database will be a mock, test database, not a real one. Only the php code would be available.



And who is going to PM this? The admins? The current coders? Have you ever tried to PM a dozen random coders all working on different parts of a system? Updates need to be coordinated, scheduled, timed, QC'd. And on top of that you have coders who drift in and out and might suddenly disappear for a week on vacation or have their computer crash and you're stuck because they have the code checked out and half-modified. Open sourcing to any random Joe is plain insane and would be chaotic hell to try and manage.

Oh, and yes I have been working in the IT industry for over ten years, so I know a little about development practices.


----------



## jayhusky (Aug 27, 2008)

Basically as Rhainor Said the current FA version is so full of holes it would be a complete waste of time... as well as the known Fact of Alkora starting the site, then a small tiff and finally Dragoneer/PreyFar taking ownership.

Ferrox on the other hand is going to be better, owned by current FA staff and more secure  therefore allowing open source


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 27, 2008)

So if the original code is Alkora's, does that make Project Ferrox Drago and co's theirs?


----------



## Rhainor (Aug 27, 2008)

mrchris said:


> So if the original code is Alkora's, does that make Project Ferrox Drago and co's theirs?


Huh?

(read: Mind restating that, preferably a bit more clearly?)


----------



## Eevee (Aug 27, 2008)

ediskrad said:


> Two words to end all of FA troubles
> 
> Open Source.


I'm honestly not sure how good or bad an idea this is any more.

On the one hand, yes, sure, people could contribute.

On the _other_ hand..
Well, for one, there is ultimately just one person who really works on FA's code, and if it were opened then he would also have to become patch gatekeeper.  I don't know if this would make his life easier or harder.  I see a lot of knee-jerk proposed solutions that float around these forums, and if people try to implement _those_ instead of fix real bugs, we would have a problem.  The design (and future plans) are currently entirely in yak's head, too, and it's a lot of work to get something like that in a form anyone else can read.
And while security through obscurity is not security at all etc etc, I'm not sure there are more white-hat man-hours than black-hat.  Or gray-cat.



Ravenesque said:


> Not that I really know exactly what goes on behind closed doors, but it appears to me that it has nothing to do with there only being a few people working full-time, but that no one is working full-time. ... Personally, I think the solution to software issues is to find a way to pay the current programmers and/or hire professionals from outside the fandom.


Decent programmers make decent money, which FA does not have.  You would also have to find someone willing to work on old crappy code that powers a _furry porn site_.



Stratadrake said:


> What happens if some joker commits a patch that causes the site to overlay user avatars (or submission thumbnails) with goatse?  What happens if some user decides to expand the site's database with a "drop table pictures" ?


This is why projects tend not to give the entire world direct commit access.



AndyFox said:


> Updates need to be coordinated, scheduled, timed, QC'd.


With freelancers on a FOSS project?  Not really.  Make them responsible for their own patches.



AndyFox said:


> And on top of that you have coders who drift in and out and might suddenly disappear for a week on vacation or have their computer crash and you're stuck because they have the code checked out and half-modified.


Um.  What?  Why do I care if someone else has eir checkout half-modified?  It could bitrot, sure, but let _that guy_ fix it when he gets back.



mrchris said:


> So if the original code is Alkora's, does that make Project Ferrox Drago and co's theirs?


Assuming I know anything about copyright law, the Ferrox code is legally owned by myself, net-cat, IndiCoyote, and possibly Crypto.


----------



## jayhusky (Aug 27, 2008)

my understanding of copyright is that if you create it you own it...

Therefore any code in Ferrox written by eevee is copyright eevee and so on so-forth.

However the copyright doesn't extend itself to Dragoneer or any other member as they did not create it.

a example is if I wrote a section of code for ferrox i would obtain copyright to that code and should I leave the site I forfeit my rights to it.

*please do not take my word as the ultimate fountain of knowledge*


----------



## Eevee (Aug 27, 2008)

furcity said:


> my understanding of copyright is that if you create it you own it...


Right.  The only question is whether Crypto has any claim to copyright, as the vast majority of what he contributed was auto-generated framework code and much of the rest has been replaced.



furcity said:


> a example is if I wrote a section of code for ferrox i would obtain copyright to that code and should I leave the site I forfeit my rights to it.


What?  You wouldn't forfeit your rights to it by leaving.


----------



## jayhusky (Aug 27, 2008)

if its auto--generated then no he doesn't have a claim to copyright..

as for forfeit rights i apologize, its late and I was thinking of something else

I will double check in the morning here in the uk with champcheetah, he helps me with a lot of my work, about cryptos rights...

but as i understand it no he doesn't


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 27, 2008)

Eevee said:


> The only question is whether Crypto has any claim to copyright...


Did Crypto ever actually DO anything in the end? Was there anything worth using?


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 27, 2008)

ediskrad said:


> Then there's even more reason to open the code. Instead of having 3 people working in their spare time, have the whole community of furry programmers working in their spare time



I don't think I made it very clear, but I was trying to say that paying for professional help is better than opening the source code. Opening it up, to me, is even more unprofessional, as well as a really freaking bad idea. 

Again, not that I really know anything. This is just what it looks like from my perspective.




Eevee said:


> Decent programmers make decent money, which FA does not have.  You would also have to find someone willing to work on old crappy code that powers a _furry porn site_.



The question is, "Why does FA not have the money?" The answer is that FA refuses to make it. I already explained the issue here, namely that too many people in the fandom have a problem with paying and/or making decent money from within the fandom. If FA had a mandatory minimum donation of $1 a month, it would make a huge difference (based upon the numbers previously quoted by FA staff). Accepting donations through credit cards would also be a step further in making sure minors get their parents permission before using FA.

Also, who wouldn't work on any site for some cold, hard cash? People do all sorts of stupid things for money. In fact, a lot of the "real life" porn sites have professional help in their implementation. (Also keep in mind that getting Ferrox up ASAP is more important than fixing the old code. And, no, I'm not trying to lecture you on that, I'm just pointing out a very obvious fact of which you already know.)

I think you're lacking a lot of confidence in the site that you are currently working on. If the staff here can't take FA seriously, then how is it supposed to excel past the point it's currently at?


----------



## ediskrad (Aug 27, 2008)

I've seen enough negativity and defeatist attitude in this thread to last a lifetime.

You won't get shit accomplished with that attitude. You've given up even before trying.

I did what I could.

/thread.


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 27, 2008)

ediskrad said:


> I've seen enough negativity and defeatist attitude in this thread to last a lifetime.
> 
> You won't get shit accomplished with that attitude. You've given up even before trying.
> 
> ...



I don't understand how it's defeatist to recommend a professional approach. I think it's incredibly positive and progressive, not to mention the best way to get things accomplished.

It's okay if you disagree. I can agree for us to do that. It just doesn't make any sense to me why you'd think it's somehow "defeatist" or "negative."


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 27, 2008)

ediskrad said:


> Two words to end all of FA troubles
> 
> Open Source.
> 
> ...


I think it's possible and worthwhile endeavor, but I don't think the current iteration of FA is quite prepared for that. Ferrox, on the other hand, is another story. And now that Eevee and the current team has been making progress (unlike the past two attempts) it's a future possibility that can work out for the better down the line.


----------



## DuncanFox (Aug 27, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> The question is, "Why does FA not have the money?" The answer is that FA refuses to make it.



That's so _cute_.  (Protip: To make money, people have to be willing to _give_ you money.  Which leads me to...)



Ravenesque said:


> If FA had a mandatory minimum donation of $1 a month, it would make a huge difference (based upon the numbers previously quoted by FA staff).



Oh, it'd make a difference alright.  The active membership would be decimated overnight.

Yeah, yeah, $15k in donations when the site was down.  That's _one-time, voluntary_ donations for a pressing need.  Subscriptions, even just for $1, play very differently in peoples' minds.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Aug 27, 2008)

A lot of people protested even _voluntary_ subscription. Which seems silly in my mind.


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 27, 2008)

DuncanFox said:


> That's so _cute_.  (Protip: To make money, people have to be willing to _give_ you money.  Which leads me to...)
> 
> Oh, it'd make a difference alright.  The active membership would be decimated overnight.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, $15k in donations when the site was down.  That's _one-time, voluntary_ donations for a pressing need.  Subscriptions, even just for $1, play very differently in peoples' minds.



I disagree. I honestly think enough people would stick around to pay the price. If they aren't willing to, good riddance. They'll wander around, find that there isn't really anywhere else worthwhile to go, then come back once they see that the money is actually helping the site grow. This is how business works. It's how the real world works. It's all about supply and demand. The protests mean nothing when you get right down to it. 




Arrow Tibbs said:


> A lot of people protested even _voluntary_ subscription. Which seems silly in my mind.



Because they're cheap little leeches, that's why. People get all upset when any service increases in price. They threaten not to pay. But what happens? They pay, anyway, and they do it because, if they want the service, they have no other choice. 

However, you can't simply ask them. You have to force them into it. Most people aren't going to just be kind enough to help others if they aren't going to get anything out of it. For instance, why did donations spike when the site went down? Because everyone was scared that the site wouldn't come back if they didn't pay for a new server. Put them into a position where they can't get the service without paying a small donation, and despite all the whining, you'll still see the money come pouring in. If the finances are handled properly, then it will only increase exponentially.

Let's look at it like this: FA staff claims there are about 50k active accounts (as posted to a thread on here when the site was down). If we assume this is accurate, we have to then ask how many of them are individual users. If we pretend every user has an average of two active accounts, that means there are 25k people using FA on a regular basis. Let's say a bit more than half of them decide one dollar is just _oh so unfair_ and leave. Say, 15k people. That would leave 10k people and $10k a month. That's if 80% of all active FA accounts end up being canceled or going unused.

Personally, I don't see how this is so hard to understand. I don't really expect it to happen, though. I'm not even saying that everyone should listen to me and go and do it. I know the admins have basically made up their mind in regard to any donation requirement for current services. I just thought I'd point out that it is a possibility. It's not impossible by sense of the word. It's an option that exists in the event that it needs to be put into effect.


----------



## CHICAGOÂ¤lollie (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> I disagree. I honestly think enough people would stick around to pay the price. If they aren't willing to, good riddance. They'll wander around, find that there isn't really anywhere else worthwhile to go, then come back once they see that the money is actually helping the site grow. This is how business works. It's how the real world works. It's all about supply and demand. The protests mean nothing when you get right down to it.



You've failed to think about possible payment methods that could suit the majority without getting FA in trouble.


Due to FurAffinity providing digitally-available adult content, PayPal can't be trusted. _Donations_ for the _server_ are fine, but as soon as PayPal catches wind that a wide load of folk are throwing a few measly dollars over on an annual basis for a _subscribed membership_ to a site containing pornography, the jig's up.

Paying by credit card through an alternative service is also out. Sure, some people on FA have credit cards. _Some_, not everyone. Others either cannot afford the fees, are with a bank that doesn't offer credit cards, or are ineligible to obtain one.

Signing up for an alternative service that allows pornographic material? Don't expect everyone to go for it that easily. Paranoia spreads fast around these woods. :(





But then, this thread is about the codebase. Not money.


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 28, 2008)

CHICAGOÂ¤lollie said:


> You've failed to think about possible payment methods that could suit the majority without getting FA in trouble.
> 
> 
> Due to FurAffinity providing digitally-available adult content, PayPal can't be trusted. _Donations_ for the _server_ are fine, but as soon as PayPal catches wind that a wide load of folk are throwing a few measly dollars over on an annual basis for a _subscribed membership_ to a site containing pornography, the jig's up.
> ...



The original poster assumed that the issues with the code can only be solved by opening it up to the public. I'm saying that the issues can be solved in a way that is much more secure, efficient, and expedient. It just so happens to involve money.

I personally wouldn't rule out credit cards. Almost every adult has one. If they don't, that's honestly their problem. They can learn how to improve their credit score just like everyone else, and go apply for one. Why do so many people in the fandom think they have a right to services and products without what is generally necessary in day-to-day life?

Anyway, I don't see an issue with it. No matter what anyone says, it _is_ a viable option. I will continue to stand by that, even knowing that it more than likely won't ever happen.


----------



## Rhainor (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> I personally wouldn't rule out credit cards. Almost every adult has one. If they don't, that's honestly their problem. They can learn how to improve their credit score just like everyone else, and go apply for one. Why do so many people in the fandom think they have a right to services and products without what is generally necessary in day-to-day life?


I think you're greatly overestimating the percentage of FA's regular userbase that qualifies as "adults".


----------



## Ralesk (Aug 28, 2008)

Regarding copyright on current code... didnâ€™t the Neer pay Alkora some good amount of money to buy the rights off of him (and make him shut up)?  Or was that just a legend?

Edis: I like your idea, but it is too risky, even if you pull up a test server with a dummy database â€” whatever holes there are in the live system, most of those will be in the open-sourced test box...  Surely you see where this is going.


----------



## jayhusky (Aug 28, 2008)

Spoken to champ, he understands it that even if Crypto submits auto-generated code for ferrox and a small deviation from the original codes is present then he is entitled to claim copyright to his code.

If no changes are present in the code the he doesn't.

I (Furcity) would strongly advise that you check with a business person with considerable knowledge of copyright to put you in good stead


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 28, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> I think you're greatly overestimating the percentage of FA's regular userbase that qualifies as "adults".



Yes and no. On one hand, I'd _like_ to think that there aren't too many minors out there who are passing themselves off as adults on the site. I'd also _like_ to think it isn't something FA would turn a blind eye to, if there were a lot of those who did. But if they're following the rules and not viewing any adult art, most parents wouldn't have too many problems lending them their credit card (most parents today don't even seem to pay attention, anyway). Even if they don't, it removes many liabilities from the equation, which is something I'd personally welcome with open arms.

If it's a matter of people acting "immature," then it's simply time for them to "grow up," no? At least, that's my opinion. But I've always been a bit of a maverick. (v ' ~')


----------



## Eevee (Aug 28, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> Did Crypto ever actually DO anything in the end? Was there anything worth using?


Doesn't matter if there was anything _worth_ using; if he contributed a line, he owns partial copyright.

Problem is that he made the initial commit, so it's a bit harder to figure out what of the code he actually wrote and what was spit out by Pylons.  Most likely a lot of very basic scattered bits are his.



Ravenesque said:


> Opening it up, to me, is even more unprofessional


...how is releasing source code unprofessional?



Ravenesque said:


> The question is, "Why does FA not have the money?" The answer is that FA refuses to make it. I already explained the issue here, namely that too many people in the fandom have a problem with paying and/or making decent money from within the fandom. If FA had a mandatory minimum donation of $1 a month, it would make a huge difference (based upon the numbers previously quoted by FA staff).


This would almost certainly destroy FA.  *I* would not use FA if it had a required fee.


----------



## hiphopopotimus (Aug 28, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Doesn't matter if there was anything _worth_ using; if he contributed a line, he owns partial copyright.



So... Dragoneer isn't getting you guys to sign away the ownership of your code? What if an angry former coder sues you?

When I started making large commits to an open source project they made me sign a contract saying every time I transfer code to their source control, I also transfer ownership of the code to them.

[edit]



Ravenesque said:


> If FA had a mandatory minimum donation of $1 a month



Then I would quit, and so would the majority of the audience.



Ravenesque said:


> making sure minors get their parents permission before using FA.



If minors are able to get their parents permission to browse FA.... somethings wrong.


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 28, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Doesn't matter if there was anything _worth_ using; if he contributed a line, he owns partial copyright.
> 
> Problem is that he made the initial commit, so it's a bit harder to figure out what of the code he actually wrote and what was spit out by Pylons.  Most likely a lot of very basic scattered bits are his.
> 
> ...




Re: Source code

When I think of a professional development team, I think of them working on their own, from the inside. How many professional dev teams do you know who will open up the code of their product to the unwashed masses? I'm sure there are some, but I am also fairly sure they're in the minority. I might be a programming retard, but I think I would have heard if this was a common occurrence.


Re: Fees

If I may ask, what is your own personal issue with a $1 a month fee? It certainly can't be a budget issue. I don't know of a single internet user in a modernized society who is _that_ strapped for cash. If they are, they shouldn't be on the internet.

However, if you'd refuse to pay in the event this happened, it would be your own loss. I'm telling you, from a business perspective, that it _would_ work in regard to the long-term. Everyone will forget their selfish, little "principles" once they realize that FA is the best site of its type currently available, and especially if they see the donations mean Ferrox will be released sooner. It's rather silly for the users to demand Ferrox immediately, but not be willing to pay for someone to do it.

It boggle my mind a bit, since you're a major player in the development of Ferrox. Do you honestly prefer doing this for free? I recall you being somewhat indignant that many people expect you to suddenly pop the project out of your butt. Wouldn't it be nice if you were getting paid enough to make it a full time endeavor?




hiphopopotimus said:


> Then I would quit, and so would the majority of the audience.
> 
> 
> 
> If minors are able to get their parents permission to browse FA.... somethings wrong.



Re: Quitting

Okay. If you wouldn't be willing to pay for a service like this, then it would be better for you to leave. However, I already stated that, in the event 80% of all currently active accounts are removed, it would still be enough to pay programmers to work on Ferrox full time. If you wouldn't be willing to come back after that, that's not an issue with anything FA may have done. I'm not sure what the issue would be, but it would have to do with you, not them.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. It does seem kinda silly when people say this sort of thing, though. It's quite obvious the majority doesn't mean it. It's just an attempt to bully the admins into giving away something for free. The history of business would prove it all to be nothing more than a bunch of hot air, however.


Re: Minors

That depends on how FA wants to market itself. The site does not currently have a huge sign that says, "GET PORN HERE," and the default option is for all mature and adult work to be hidden from view (I also suggest they do this with journals). FA is for all kinds of art, but a lot of people really do like the porn, since it's not exactly something you're going to find in mainstream media.

Also keep in mind that parents buy their seven year old kids Grand Theft Auto games. :/


----------



## hiphopopotimus (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> Re: Source code
> 
> When I think of a professional development team, I think of them working on their own, from the inside. How many professional dev teams do you know who will open up the code of their product to the unwashed masses? I'm sure there are some, but I am also fairly sure they're in the minority. I might be a programming retard, but I think I would have heard if this was a common occurrence.



Even Microsoft opens up their source code for most of their products(including windows) to vendors/OEM/Students/Professors/Professionals/etc. Every major software company releases source to vendors, OEM, and etc. Some companies release source to professionals in the field or anyone who can sign an NDA. And - of course - every open source project releases their source code. Are you saying the large open source projects that are used every day by major corporations and home users alike aren't professional?



Ravenesque said:


> Okay. If you wouldn't be willing to pay for a service like this, then it would be better for you to leave. However, I already stated that, in the event 80% of all currently active accounts are removed, it would still be enough to pay programmers to work on Ferrox full time.



Ever hear of scarcity? Why pay for FA when VCL has search and is still free? You underestimate, it isn't that 80% will leave, 99.99% will quit. Why would an artist pay to put up their art on FA when DA/VCL/Transfur/everything else is free? Even if only 20% of the artists quit, consumers will have an ever decreasing inclination to pay because the other furry sites are free and have more artists. As the consumers leave, so will the producers; why would they continue to pay when they can reach a larger consumer base elsewhere. A monthly fee could kill FA.



Ravenesque said:


> That depends on how FA wants to market itself.



FA's brand image is currently furry porn, that is what the majority of the stuff here is like. Even the non-adult stuff is still mostly furry porn. It's too late in the game to reboot FA's brand; FA will never be DA - ever.



Ravenesque said:


> Also keep in mind that parents buy their seven year old kids Grand Theft Auto games.



Also keep in mind the the GTA games lack monsters with spiky testicle dicks raping people.


----------



## Emil (Aug 28, 2008)

hiphopopotimus said:


> Also keep in mind the the GTA games lack monsters with spiky testicle dicks raping people.



And so does FA when you keep the filters on


----------



## Eevee (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> When I think of a professional development team, I think of them working on their own, from the inside. How many professional dev teams do you know who will open up the code of their product to the unwashed masses? I'm sure there are some, but I am also fairly sure they're in the minority. I might be a programming retard, but I think I would have heard if this was a common occurrence.


Most professional dev teams _do not own their code_.

And, uh, id does this all the time.  Mozilla came from the source code released by Netscape.  OpenOffice I believe was based on the closed-source StarOffice.  Java is (mostly?) open-source now.  Blender was originally closed-source.



Ravenesque said:


> If I may ask, what is your own personal issue with a $1 a month fee?


I don't want to be forced to pay a dollar to _use a web site_.  So I wouldn't.



Ravenesque said:


> I'm telling you, from a business perspective, that it _would_ work in regard to the long-term. Everyone will forget their selfish, little "principles" once they realize that FA is the best site of its type currently available


You have far too much faith in people's willingness to part with their cash.  Someone would throw up a Coppermine installation or whatever for free, all the furries would flock there, and we would have FA all over again.  Once a free replacement of ANY sort sprang up, a pay site would be utterly worthless.

FA doesn't do anything terribly unique or special for a site.



Ravenesque said:


> It boggle my mind a bit, since you're a major player in the development of Ferrox. Do you honestly prefer doing this for free? I recall you being somewhat indignant that many people expect you to suddenly pop the project out of your butt. Wouldn't it be nice if you were getting paid enough to make it a full time endeavor?


FA could not likely consistently pay me enough to make this a full-time thing even, and the likely length of development time if I were actually working eight hours a day would not get me paid long enough for it to be worth quitting my existing job anyway.


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 28, 2008)

hiphopopotimus said:


> Even Microsoft opens up their source code for most of their products(including windows) to vendors/OEM/Students/Professors/Professionals/etc. Every major software company releases source to vendors, OEM, and etc. Some companies release source to professionals in the field or anyone who can sign an NDA. And - of course - every open source project releases their source code. Are you saying the large open source projects that are used every day by major corporations and home users alike aren't professional?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Re: Open source

What I'm saying is that opening it up to _public_ is unprofessional. Perhaps I'm out of touch, but is MS actually putting their work up on _Sourceforge_, and letting anyone on the internet to mess with the code? Or is it only available to certain people who know what they're doing? I see a stark difference there.


Re: Scarcity

I still see this as a scare tactic. There's a reason why people mostly left all the other sites and came to FA. There's a reason why they left FAP to return to FA when the new server came online, as well as a reason why FAP completely failed. You have to look at the big picture to understand this.

There's also a question of how long FA can survive in this manner. How long until someone else comes along, creates a site equal to (or better) than FA, and leaves them in the dust? This seems to be the trend with art sites in the fandom. If FA wants to survive, it has to take some risks. It has to a find way to give the users what they want in a timely fashion. However, they can't do it for free. What exactly do you expect from them?

Keep in mind, what I'm saying applies to any site like this. I'd like to see FA succeed, but if someone else comes along and excels where FA cannot, then they deserve to take the lead. It's survival of the fittest, is it not? 


Re: Brand of Porn

Is it, really? One thing you need to remember is that the furry fandom is not so well known that everyone and their mother is up to date with how things work here. What the insiders say and think is pretty damn pointless to an outside observer, making the opinions of Joe Furry pretty much moot.

The majority of parents are going to look at the site, read the TOS, maybe email the owner. They aren't going to actually see any of the porn since, 1. They won't be looking for it, and 2. It's blocked out to any casual visitors without an account (in fact, the intelligent thing to do, if they feel their children can handle the clean art, is set up the account with their own password and make sure adult content is always off). That's the same reason GTA is purchased by parents for their kids: Because all they see is the _box_. They don't know what's in it, nor do they look into it.

Now, I think they should. I think it would be best if all minors were removed from the site, but that's just me. I don't like kids very much, but that doesn't mean I want them to be exposed to adult material before they're mentally and emotionally mature enough to process it. Just my own personal opinion, for what little it's worth.


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 28, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Most professional dev teams _do not own their code_.
> 
> And, uh, id does this all the time.  Mozilla came from the source code released by Netscape.  OpenOffice I believe was based on the closed-source StarOffice.  Java is (mostly?) open-source now.  Blender was originally closed-source.



As I asked another poster, just how open is "open?" I can understand making the code available to certain groups, but are major devs putting their code up for the entire internet to use? If so, how do they protect it from malicious code? This is an honest to God question, as my main concern on the internet will always be _security, security, security._




Eevee said:


> I don't want to be forced to pay a dollar to _use a web site_.  So I wouldn't.



Okay. However, do you pay for cable? If so, you're paying to watch certain television stations. If you subscribe to a magazine, it's even much closer to what this would be. I see very little difference, so I don't understand what it being a "_website_" has to do with it. I can understand if you abhor subscription fees in general, but there's still a _lot_ of people who are quite fond of them.




Eevee said:


> You have far too much faith in people's willingness to part with their cash.  Someone would throw up a Coppermine installation or whatever for free, all the furries would flock there, and we would have FA all over again.  Once a free replacement of ANY sort sprang up, a pay site would be utterly worthless.
> 
> FA doesn't do anything terribly unique or special for a site.



People will pay a dollar for a broken pencil on eBay. They'll pay a dollar a month for access to a site that is well maintained and has very useful features. The catch? Someone actually has to do the work. Something about FA has to be _made_ special so that people will enjoy logging in and using it. Isn't that what Ferrox is supposed to be and do? Or are you just wasting your time by simply making a clone of the current site that lacks the current "broken" code?

Also, why do you seem to have such little faith in the site you're working on?




Eevee said:


> FA could not likely consistently pay me enough to make this a full-time thing even, and the likely length of development time if I were actually working eight hours a day would not get me paid long enough for it to be worth quitting my existing job anyway.



You're saying that it would take a long time to finish Ferrox while working full time on it? Then how do you expect to get it done at this rate?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's really up to you guys how you want to handle this, but I certainly see an issue with it. The only reason I brought it up is because the solution offered in the OP will quite obviously not be enough to fix all of the problems (though, admittedly, it would be a step up from where you're at now, I suppose). I see a better possibility, so I am discussing that, and explaining how it could potentially work.


----------



## hiphopopotimus (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> What I'm saying is that opening it up to _public_ is unprofessional. Perhaps I'm out of touch, but is MS actually putting their work up on _Sourceforge_, and letting anyone on the internet to mess with the code? Or is it only available to certain people who know what they're doing? I see a stark difference there.



Not sourceforge, they have their own open source site: http://www.codeplex.com/
And yes, they release open source stuff on it.

You also said:


Ravenesque said:


> If so, how do they protect it from malicious code? This is an honest to God question, as my main concern on the internet will always be security, security, security.



Obscurity is not a form of security, on the whole OS software tends to be more secure then closed source(more eyes to see the bugs and no one can sneak malicious code in).

If you want to get technical, assembly coders already have all the source code they need of every program on their computer(who needs comments anyways).



Ravenesque said:


> I still see this as a scare tactic.



Its not, its the honest truth. Don't assume that just because you would pay for something everyone else will too - I have a friend that went bankrupt that way. The problem is that people paying for FA wouldn't be paying for anything that Ferrox did they would be paying for the artists. If I were an artist I would be pissed when someone made money off my rear end. Ferrox would have to reimburse or encourage the artists somehow, it gets complex from that point on.

And if you STILL see it as a scare tactic and think that a pay fur site - where the owners rely on people giving them free art to make money on - could survive; why don't you start one? You could make a lot of money! Just get the old FA source code from PI 

(edit: I would just like to add that there are pay fur sites(such as art decades) that seem to work out, but in those cases the artist is the one who makes the money so they have insentive. whats the incentive for FA artists if it becomes a pay site)



Ravenesque said:


> Is it, really?



Yes, it is. Your argument boils down to 'no one knows what furries are! CLEAN SLATE'. Lets hope the parents don't search the web, watch CSI, check to see what the site is like with adult filters off, or visit the main page after someone uploads some porn and accidentally forgets to flag it. Lets also hope that the 4chan/ED trolls don't catch wind of this plan.

Oh, and what are you going to do about the cub category? All adults in their right mind(i know, many aren't) will know what that is and freak out.

Its just a bad idea to attempt to rebrand FA as family friendly, you would have to completely redesign how it works, get rid of tonns of art already on the site, get more mods to check all the uploads, and change the name; at which point just creating a new site becomes more convenient.


----------



## Eevee (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> As I asked another poster, just how open is "open?"


When I say "open source", I mean it.  All of the projects I named, plus every engine id has ever made, are released under an open source license.



Ravenesque said:


> I can understand making the code available to certain groups, but are major devs putting their code up for the entire internet to use?


Yes?  You do realize that, say, Firefox is open-source?



Ravenesque said:


> If so, how do they protect it from malicious code?


Open-source does not imply that the project owner accepts and includes patches from anyone without so much as reading them.



Ravenesque said:


> Okay. However, do you pay for cable? If so, you're paying to watch certain television stations.


I'm paying for a service on which multiple streams of media are piggy-backing, all of which have their own revenue models so I don't have to pay extra on top of my normal cable service.

No, I don't have Showtime.



Ravenesque said:


> I see very little difference, so I don't understand what it being a "_website_" has to do with it.


Content should be available to all, free of charge.



Ravenesque said:


> People will pay a dollar for a broken pencil on eBay. They'll pay a dollar a month for access to a site that is well maintained and has very useful features.


Selling a broken pencil on eBay requires _one_ person to pay.  Making a paysite work requires _a significant chunk of the target audience_ to pay.  They are hardly the same.



Ravenesque said:


> Something about FA has to be _made_ special so that people will enjoy logging in and using it. Isn't that what Ferrox is supposed to be and do?


Hopefully  :V



Ravenesque said:


> Also, why do you seem to have such little faith in the site you're working on?


Cynical bastard?



Ravenesque said:


> You're saying that it would take a long time to finish Ferrox while working full time on it?


I'm saying it _wouldn't_ take as long, so it wouldn't be worth quitting my regular job just to be guaranteed unemployed again a short while later.


----------



## Kyiro-Sama (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> Re: Source code
> 
> ...How many professional dev teams do you know who will open up the code of their product to the unwashed masses?
> 
> ...I might be a programming retard, but I think I would have heard if this was a common occurrence.



not flaming or anything buuut...
Ever hear of Linus Torvalds? Invented something that took the world by storm once... Also think, imho, his 'invention' created open source which is the founding stone of THE most powerful operating system ever created used worldwide and not limited to governments. The code itself being written _entirely_ by its user community in some instances. Major company enterprises and most IT preferred versions are opensource to the core (though I don't know about that ugly Novell creation that seems so popular). As for common occurance, I would say it is harder to find proprietary software for linux, to the extent that the users pause a moment and blink  in suprise when they see something that is NOT opensourced.

I would consider most of the dev teams for those projects are extremely professional considering most of the IT Backbone world runs off of their gear...


Bah, just my two bits, considering I dev on the side for a BTOS distro.


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 28, 2008)

hiphopopotimus said:


> Not sourceforge, they have their own open source site: http://www.codeplex.com/
> And yes, they release open source stuff on it.



That didn't really answer my question, but okay. I'll wait for info from Eevee on that one. It's not something I'm all that interested in, though.




hiphopopotimus said:


> Obscurity is not a form of security, on the whole OS software tends to be more secure then closed source(more eyes to see the bugs and no one can sneak malicious code in).
> 
> If you want to get technical, assembly coders already have all the source code they need of every program on their computer(who needs comments anyways).



If you say so. I'm far from an expert on code. If you say that it's safe and secure, I suppose I'll take your word for it. I will, however, still remain quite skeptical.




hiphopopotimus said:


> Its not, its the honest truth. Don't assume that just because you would pay for something everyone else will too - I have a friend that went bankrupt that way.



It doesn't have to do with me or what I'd purchase. You're assuming that people have your own spending habits (or lack thereof), apparently. But the truth is that people do spend money, and they do it on some of the most absurd things. A dollar a month for access to a site is far from crazy.




hiphopopotimus said:


> The problem is that people paying for FA wouldn't be paying for anything that Ferrox did they would be paying for the artists. If I were an artist I would be pissed when someone made money off my rear end. Ferrox would have to reimburse or encourage the artists somehow, it gets complex from that point on.



Who says? The artist would have to pay for their accounts, too. FA is a place for them to advertise and display their art in a way that makes it more marketable. It's how many of them take commissions (and therefore get money for their work). They don't have to buy a domain, pay for hosting, or any of that (some will, anyway, but that's their choice). If they can't grasp this, then I wish them luck trying to succeed with their career. They'll need it.

On the other hand, there are things FA could do to reward artists who bring in a lot of people. But that's something that would have to be discussed, planned, and refined.




hiphopopotimus said:


> And if you STILL see it as a scare tactic and think that a pay fur site - where the owners rely on people giving them free art to make money on - could survive; why don't you start one? You could make a lot of money! Just get the old FA source code from PI



Why is this such a common response from people in the fandom? "If you think it's such a great idea, you go do it!" Honestly, why should I? I have no interest in such a thing, no desire to go up against FA. Just because I see a potential plan for improvement doesn't mean that I have to go out and do it myself. It's just like how those who aren't artists are still capable of knowing what ugly is. They don't have to be good at it before they can justifiably comment on how it looks.




hiphopopotimus said:


> Yes, it is. Your argument boils down to 'no one knows what furries are! CLEAN SLATE'. Lets hope the parents don't search the web, watch CSI, check to see what the site is like with adult filters off, or visit the main page after someone uploads some porn and accidentally forgets to flag it.



That's just silly. Some people do know what furries are. And some of them _gasp_ in horror. Most of them tend to be internet addicts and are in the minority. 

Personally, I've known more people to be ignorant on the matter. They go searching, see the bad crap, and chalk it up to a subsect of crazy people. The vast majority couldn't give a hoot, either way.

I don't really want to have a "fursecution" discussion beyond this, though. I hate those, and I don't want to get off onto too many things at once.




hiphopopotimus said:


> Oh, and what are you going to do about the cub category? All adults in their right mind(i know, many aren't) will know what that is and freak out.
> 
> Its just a bad idea to attempt to rebrand FA as family friendly, you would have to completely redesign how it works, get rid of tonns of art already on the site, get more mods to check all the uploads, and change the name; at which point just creating a new site becomes more convenient.



I never once said to brand it as family friendly. You're putting words in my mouth and assuming things. What I'm saying is that FA, on the surface, all things considered, is a _furry art site_. I'm not talking about what a lot of people use it for or the content of the majority of art. It's a site with furry art that anyone who likes furry art can enjoy in some fashion. There are plenty of people (albeit the minority) who keep the adult filter on simply because they don't like the stuff. More power to them.

What I'm saying is simply this: If someone under eighteen wants access to the site, they have to get parental consent. I believe they are _supposed_ to do this, anyway. If a credit card is required, it puts them in a position where they have to ask for the card. Many of them will be too afraid and just quit using FA. Others may end up getting access, but having it cut off later by their parents. I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact, I think it would be for the best. Like I said, I don't really want to see kids on FA, period (yet, again, _that's just me_).


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Aug 28, 2008)

Hey Ravenesque et al, I started a new thread for the payment discussion so this thread stays on topic.  

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?p=570216#post570216


----------



## hiphopopotimus (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravenesque said:


> That didn't really answer my question, but okay. I'll wait for info from Eevee on that one. It's not something I'm all that interested in, though.



Yes I did. You asked if Microsoft released source to the general public(anyone, everyone, even bad people) and I said yes. Here's a short list:
http://www.codeplex.com/site/users/view/Microsoft

There are some other programs that MS will release the source to non-professionals as well on other sites.



Ravenesque said:


> If you say so. I'm far from an expert on code.



Then google it 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_and_closed_source#Security

Everything else you said was ether wrong, self contradictory, or ignored my points; try again.

[edit]


Arrow Tibbs said:


> Hey Ravenesque et al, I started a new thread for the payment discussion so this thread stays on topic.
> 
> http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?p=570216#post570216



Sorry


----------



## Ravenesque (Aug 28, 2008)

Eevee said:


> When I say "open source", I mean it.  All of the projects I named, plus every engine id has ever made, are released under an open source license.
> 
> 
> Yes?  You do realize that, say, Firefox is open-source?



Then I concede to your knowledge in that area. However, I do tend to think that Firefox is an abominable piece of dung, though I am aware that it's only one application out of many. 




Eevee said:


> I'm paying for a service on which multiple streams of media are piggy-backing, all of which have their own revenue models so I don't have to pay extra on top of my normal cable service.



However, you are paying for the cable service. The way I see it, Televsion is to Cable as Internet is to FurAffinity. I don't view a computer in the same way as a television set (or the internet in the same way as cable), as there's just so many more things that it can do. They aren't on the same level of functionality from where I'm looking.




Eevee said:


> Content should be available to all, free of charge.



Yes, I understand where you're coming from, now. I can't really say there is a flaw in that belief, exactly. It's just something I don't agree with. And I am capable of agreeing to disagree. ;3




Eevee said:


> Selling a broken pencil on eBay requires _one_ person to pay.  Making a paysite work requires _a significant chunk of the target audience_ to pay.  They are hardly the same.



The biggest difference I see is this: The more people who subscribe and take part, the more diverse and interesting the community can potentially be. I look at it similar to an MMO. But such a thing can still be enjoyable with fewer people. And in terms of cost, I see very little difference. A dollar is a dollar. We can even take off a penny so it's a fancy looking $0.99. 




Eevee said:


> I'm saying it _wouldn't_ take as long, so it wouldn't be worth quitting my regular job just to be guaranteed unemployed again a short while later.



Oh, I'm not thinking of it like that. I think FA needs a paid, dedicated IT professional and/or programmer to be on call every day. Said person needs to keep the code up to date, work on updates, bug fixes, etc. If it was up to me (which it obviously isn't!), you'd stay on the pay roll even after Ferrox was completed (assuming your progress was notable). You'd also receive the same basic rate of pay.


For those who might say this would make FA a for-profit organization, I have an analogy most people won't like, but here it is:

Churches. Most churches are considered non-profit organizations. Anything you give is tax deductible. However, Mr. Preacher Man gets paid out of that money. The mortgage and upkeep of the building/grounds come out of that money. Anyone else who works there, the bookkeepers, groundskeepers, etc. are also paid out of that pool of donations. However, the organization, itself, isn't making what is considered a _profit_. It's just paying for what it has to in order to stay active.

So look at Preyfar as the Good Reverend 'Neer, preaching and spreading the Word of Dog (or hyena, whatever). He's organizing this, so he needs to be paid if he's going to be able to focus on it completely. Same for Damaratus, you, and anyone else who is considered to be necessary to the operation of the site.

One other thing of note: I'm not sure if it is now, but if FA is/becomes a non-profit organization, that $12 a year may potentially be tax deductible. If not, much larger donations would be.




Arrow Tibbs said:


> Hey Ravenesque et al, I started a new thread for the payment discussion so this thread stays on topic.
> 
> http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?p=570216#post570216



Part of having a discussion is branching off somewhat onto other, related topics. I personally don't see it as off-topic, since my first post was in response to the suggestion in the OP, and other people chose to ask me questions about how it might work. Restricting the natural flow of a discussion is necessary at times, but isn't very conducive to the sharing of ideas and opinions.

If there is a rule about such a thing, please feel free to direct me to it. I read them some time ago, so I don't actually remember every nuance.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravenesque: Yes, topic drift happens, but this topic is more about why the code base should be opened, so it would be less cluttered to discuss potential payment options in another thread.


----------

