mojo
mojo copied to clipboard
modularml
FAQ should make it clear what will be open source
Where is the problem?
https://docs.modular.com/mojo/faq.html
What can we do better?
For Mojo's adoption, it's essential for the community to clearly understand which components will be open source and which won't. While the FAQ addresses this, it doesn't provide definite assurances about the open source status of tools like the compiler and the entire SDK, or the licensing terms. Considering that Python and Rust developers, potential Mojo enthusiasts, generally expect their languages and tools to be open source, a similar commitment for Mojo could significantly bolster community growth.
Anything else?
No response
I do agree with this. I'd like to add to your point that, there should also be community guidelines in all offered communication platforms in the docs website so that everybody can help grow both the community itself and the language in a friendly manner. I'm not sure if these guidelines are already present (as I did read the documentation and didn't find it, but correct me if I missed it somewhere 😉 🤝) and even if they were present in the corresponding platforms, I think they should also be placed in the docs or FAQ for better visibility.
I also agree.
It would be great to try this out for some of the research projects I'm working on. But I cannot consider it until there are clear licensing terms for my organization to evaluate.
Until then, I can't justify spending any time learning this tool, regardless of how promising it seems.
Hi @mr-michael-davies please see the discussion on this in Discord where Chris expanded on the answer given in the FAQ: https://discord.com/channels/1087530497313357884/1150192423847334079/1152005818921783387
@jackos can you cross-post the comment in question here? People shouldn't have to create a discord account to get this information. Also, random comments on discord servers are prone to disappearing without the possibility of saving them in the Wayback machine or similar.
