3 ms·

We built the same features in open source for the Odoo website builder. You can try it here: https://www.odoo.com/page/website-builder https://www.odoo.com/pa

We built the same features in open source for the Odoo website builder. You can try it here: https://www.odoo.com/page/website-builder https://www.odoo.com/page/website-builder We also put features like resizeable bootstrap column with drag & drop (col-md-X), link manager, media manager, special fields edition (e.g. prices with currencies)... Playing with building blocks look more sleek in Odoo version. Github: https://github.com/odoo/odoo https://github.com/odoo/odoo Disclaimer: I am the founder of Odoo. We should probably extract this bit of code from Odoo to release a standalone library.

pluma 12y ago
Note: "open source" in this case means AGPL.
- bratsche 12y ago
  Not sure what the "quotes" are for. AGPL is open source.
  - goldfeld 12y ago
    I think open source has come to mean for many people /no strings-attached/, as in "I can use it in my startup however I care." AGPL is not just open source but closer to a free software ideal, where proprietary services can't just ride on top of a common good library and not provide the source.
  - pluma 12y ago
    I didn't mean to imply anything else. I guess italics would have been less ambiguous. AGPL is open source in the "free software" sense. Many people wrongly assume "open source" means "permissively licensed", which of course isn't accurate. As AGPL is probably as restrictive as it gets it might catch those people by surprise. Unless you're working with GPL software exclusively, "open source" as a qualifier does not convey much practical information. I find it more helpful to point out the actual license than to just state whether something is open source or closed source, unless we're in a context where the exact license is irrelevant (e.g. when we're only interested whether something is GPL-compatible or not).
    - belorn 12y ago
      Anyone who want to take software that someone else made and slap their own license on it has to be careful. It can be "open source", "free software", "free ware", "abandon ware", "stuff they downloaded from the Internet", or "stuff they bought". If they want to add their own set of restrictions onto the software, reading and understanding the license is the only way prevent being sued for copyright infringement. Everyone else who do not want to add their own restrictions to the software has a much easier time.
bung 12y ago
I've noticed a few CMSs with varying levels of this sort of thing, would be great if you released it :) Also, it would really be great if tools like this were listed somewhere, and/or one of them managed to get enough traction to end up being something as fundamental as "bootstrap" is. I sometimes get sad seeing all these different tools and libraries re-created rather than having features added/improved by a larger community.

pluma 12y ago

Note: "open source" in this case means AGPL.

bratsche 12y ago
Not sure what the "quotes" are for. AGPL is open source.
- goldfeld 12y ago
  I think open source has come to mean for many people /no strings-attached/, as in "I can use it in my startup however I care." AGPL is not just open source but closer to a free software ideal, where proprietary services can't just ride on top of a common good library and not provide the source.
- pluma 12y ago
  I didn't mean to imply anything else. I guess italics would have been less ambiguous. AGPL is open source in the "free software" sense. Many people wrongly assume "open source" means "permissively licensed", which of course isn't accurate. As AGPL is probably as restrictive as it gets it might catch those people by surprise. Unless you're working with GPL software exclusively, "open source" as a qualifier does not convey much practical information. I find it more helpful to point out the actual license than to just state whether something is open source or closed source, unless we're in a context where the exact license is irrelevant (e.g. when we're only interested whether something is GPL-compatible or not).
  - belorn 12y ago
    Anyone who want to take software that someone else made and slap their own license on it has to be careful. It can be "open source", "free software", "free ware", "abandon ware", "stuff they downloaded from the Internet", or "stuff they bought". If they want to add their own set of restrictions onto the software, reading and understanding the license is the only way prevent being sued for copyright infringement. Everyone else who do not want to add their own restrictions to the software has a much easier time.

bung 12y ago

I've noticed a few CMSs with varying levels of this sort of thing, would be great if you released it :) Also, it would really be great if tools like this were listed somewhere, and/or one of them managed to get enough traction to end up being something as fundamental as "bootstrap" is. I sometimes get sad seeing all these different tools and libraries re-created rather than having features added/improved by a larger community.