amp-cms VS tinacms

For instance, I've loved the idea behind TypeORM and going to implement a lighter and testable version of it for my beloved amp-cms

ValeriaVG / amp-cms

> Why is are all static site generators (that I am aware of) are CLI? What prevent simplistic drag and drop GUI/WYSIWYG that generates those clean static files?

Check:

- Tina CMS: https://tina.io/

- Primo CMS: https://primocms.org/

Anyway, you seem to be holding the wrong end of the stick. Static generation is the easy part, what you're looking for is a subset that falls under the CMS umbrella, just search for `CMS+SSG` you'll find a diverse set of solutions.

You can also setup any generic Headless CMS to trigger generation for a static site. Why would someone build a full fledged CMS and limit it to a niche market inside a niche?

Tina CMS, formerly Forestry, is one of the best open source Git-based CMSs in terms of the provided feature set. It covers the basics, such as:

Try tina cms https://tina.io

Currently testing it with Docusaurus for our documentation site.

The next step in building this demo blog application is to set up TinaCMS, an open source headless CMS that supports the Markdown format.

Solutions like CloudCanon or TinaCMS use this approach.

With TinaCMS, all your content changes are committed directly to Git. This enables your team to create a variety of workflows for reviewing and merging content updates. By leaning on GitHub, you can integrate CI/CD into your content workflow.

Check out this license for example: https://github.com/tinacms/tinacms/blob/main/LICENSE

It's an Apache 2.0 license, but with adendums.

Would it be reasonable to say that I could fork their repo for own purposes, and argue in court that I was only familar with Apache 2.0, and not their modified terms?