Lektor VS tinacms

Guess I'm one of the annoying users who complained when armin's Lektor (https://github.com/lektor/lektor) started going dormant back when, but I loved it for a while. I'm on Astro now, but a big thanks for helping a younger version for me.

Lektor is a modern and flexible static content management system that utilizes Python as its core language. It comes with an intuitive web-based admin interface, making it easy for content creators to manage and update the site. Lektor supports a variety of content types and has an active community that contributes to its continuous improvement.

Lektor CMS is sort of a prototype-ish thing doing this: https://www.getlektor.com/

It has (used to have? Can't find them on the site now) pre-packaged binaries that you would drop into a folder structure generated by the technically-minded person, and the content editor can simply click on that binary, which opens the backend of the CMS in the web browser, make changes and click deploy.

There have been several Flask-based CMS's but I don't remember most of them. IIRC Lektor is based on Flask.

Static hosting could be enough for many sites and one could combine the technical and UX advantages of your dynamic interface with the advantages of static sites for security and distribution.

I found that useful when i worked with https://www.getlektor.com/ years ago. In lektor the dynamic part runs on a users desktop machine, but it of course wouldn't need to.

Lektor is Python based and Just Works, but it is far off the beaten track… https://www.getlektor.com/

> 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?