Closed herregroen closed 6 years ago
Agreed, switching to the MIT License would open up Camaleon CMS to a wider audience for the above reasons.
+1 for MIT License
+1
+1
I actually like the idea of using the AGPL to force the product itself to be improved instead of a thousand different forks getting a thousand incompatible improvements that aren't merged back into camaleon (or at least open-sourced)... but I think the point is moot because the AGPL is not backwards-compatible to the MIT so it's too late. It's copyrighted into the public domain (copyleft) with all rights reserved to the public domain, which includes not using closed-source versions of it.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#Compatibility_of_FOSS_licenses
no I will suggest stay with GPL please..
Friends, I changed the license into MIT to have this:
Most Ruby CMS, and gems in general, use the MIT license.
Camaleon CMS is currently using the GNU Affero General Public License.
I would suggest switching to the MIT License. It's used by most dependencies of Camaleon CMS ( rails, cancan, fog etc. ) and would make it much easier for businesses and individuals to start using Camaleon CMS, it's a significantly simpler license.