[gitgud]

Fair enough good to see the license is corrected.

It's not the fact that there's a pro version, I don't have a problem with that. I just didn't like the way it was marketed to seem like an open-source project. You can't actually sell MIT licensed software and keep it open-source right?

That would defeat the purpose of permissive open-source MIT licenses...

[vantagedesign]

I partially agree with you. The demo page is for both the free (open source, MIT license) version and the Pro version. Just for the sake of simplicity and to show that there's more if people want that, but its not forced anywhere.

I might consider making two versions of the demo and documentation, and keeping them separate. I didn't think it would matter. I value your input :)