When you say “isn’t competitive” you need to say “Isn’t competitive with MAX Enterprise” IFF that is really what you mean. Otherwise, you are treading dangerously close to implying a “Rug Pull”, IMHO…
you need to start this conversation with "we don't want a big player like aws to make more commercialize our thing while we cannot make ends meet" now let me tell you about details.
While I can understand the community license and "Competitive Activity" restrictions for MAX, applying this same license to mojo will I think kill most interest in trying the language. Asking engineers to try out your language with a cloud of uncertainty over whether what they build with vanilla mojo could result in legal actions will be a non-starter IMHO. I have seen Modular conjoin MAX and mojo more and more over the last several months. From reading the FAQ and community license, I see no commitment to separate mojo from MAX, and therefore no separation from the "Competitive Activity" restriction. I had assumed mojo would be free to use however you want (as pretty much every other language out there) and MAX would be how Modular earned money. But this is no longer the case, and I dont see any commitment by Modular to make mojo 100% free to use however you want with a separate license. While it's certainly Modular's prerogative and right to do so, I personally think this will kill off a very large number of engineers from touching mojo (and therefore MAX). As it stands, I can't recommend to anyone at my work to keep their eyes on mojo until mojo gets its own license. And as for MAX, I don't see that much point in using it without also using mojo. And how will people build up mojo expertise unless they can build real world software with it? Having MAX and mojo tightly coupled together is going to kill a lot of enthusiasm. I know it has for me
What's the Mojo license exactly? Are you going to open source it? From where I stand I won't touch Mojo until I can see its code in Github under a permissive license.
The Mojo standard library's license is Apache 2 with LLVM Exceptions and you can access the code here: github.com/modularml/mojo. The broader MAX and Mojo SDK has a modified Business Source License called the MAX & Mojo Community License (www.modular.com/legal/max-mojo-license). We really appreciate all the feedback, and there is also a license FAQ page here: www.modular.com/pricing
@@ooxxoo-z7w We're committed to progressively making the source code of Mojo fully available over time, but unfortunately can't share a timeline at this point.
Still not very clear and confusing, language and core library is open source with apache license. But SDK that include compiler and debugger are not, which most developer consider part of the language. Nothing against any company make money on open source to sustain the effort that required continuous investment with time, man power and money. But let's say if I am only interesting to use mojo for CPU in general apps and compute, and GPU for graphic and games, and doesn't care about AI what so ever at all, it's still not very comforting SDK have different license and many string attached, and legal jargon attach to it. Mojo can and should be a better language then Rust for system programming, and the SDK license terms are a huge minus and bump for it's general adoption.
We appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and we understand that the difference in licenses between the SDK and standard library can be frustrating. Our intention is to enable as many people as possible to build on MAX and Mojo and for them to have as high-quality an experience as possible. We believe the new license is the best way to do this, but we hear you on the confusion and frustration. Our pricing page ( www.modular.com/pricing ) also offers more details on the different licenses. To clarify, if you intend on using “Mojo for CPU in general apps and compute, and GPU for graphics and games” to build something not commercially competitive with MAX Enterprise, you’re still 100% empowered to do so. We’re here to work with you - feel free to reach out about your use case if you have any concerns.
@@modularinc I dont' think with this sort of "muddy" license terms, the ecosystem will ever take off and third-party packages will increase over time, which defeat the goal of wider adaption, even language design and ergonomics is better then other languages. It's hard sell for large project that required major investment and organisation buy-in, it will be disqualify from potential tech stack even before reach legal department. Between mojo and zig, most developer would likely choose zig purely because of license, open source nature and community support, even mojo is more high level. Mojo can be a better, more clean design and modern version of "rust" with pythonic syntax. But without clear licences term and communication, what's open source and what's close source under commercial terms, the ecosystem will not flourish, "non-compete" clause is very vague definitions and doesn't inspire confidence with open source community. For the samme purpose avoid "free riding" FSL license is much better.
@@MW-mn1el We really appreciate the feedback! We've updated the license and FAQ page to be clearer, and we'll continue iterating based on community feedback.
![Mojo 🔥 - Is it Python's faster cousin or just hype? [PyCon DE & PyData Berlin 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A67P4-A4yLk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Mojo 🔥 - Is it Python's faster cousin or just hype? [PyCon DE & PyData Berlin 2024]](/img/tr.png)
When you say “isn’t competitive” you need to say “Isn’t competitive with MAX Enterprise” IFF that is really what you mean. Otherwise, you are treading dangerously close to implying a “Rug Pull”, IMHO…
Thank you for sharing this feedback. You're right - that is what we mean, and we’ll be clearer about this going forward.
you need to start this conversation with "we don't want a big player like aws to make more commercialize our thing while we cannot make ends meet" now let me tell you about details.
While I can understand the community license and "Competitive Activity" restrictions for MAX, applying this same license to mojo will I think kill most interest in trying the language. Asking engineers to try out your language with a cloud of uncertainty over whether what they build with vanilla mojo could result in legal actions will be a non-starter IMHO.
I have seen Modular conjoin MAX and mojo more and more over the last several months. From reading the FAQ and community license, I see no commitment to separate mojo from MAX, and therefore no separation from the "Competitive Activity" restriction.
I had assumed mojo would be free to use however you want (as pretty much every other language out there) and MAX would be how Modular earned money. But this is no longer the case, and I dont see any commitment by Modular to make mojo 100% free to use however you want with a separate license. While it's certainly Modular's prerogative and right to do so, I personally think this will kill off a very large number of engineers from touching mojo (and therefore MAX).
As it stands, I can't recommend to anyone at my work to keep their eyes on mojo until mojo gets its own license. And as for MAX, I don't see that much point in using it without also using mojo. And how will people build up mojo expertise unless they can build real world software with it? Having MAX and mojo tightly coupled together is going to kill a lot of enthusiasm.
I know it has for me
What's the Mojo license exactly? Are you going to open source it?
From where I stand I won't touch Mojo until I can see its code in Github under a permissive license.
The Mojo standard library's license is Apache 2 with LLVM Exceptions and you can access the code here: github.com/modularml/mojo. The broader MAX and Mojo SDK has a modified Business Source License called the MAX & Mojo Community License (www.modular.com/legal/max-mojo-license). We really appreciate all the feedback, and there is also a license FAQ page here: www.modular.com/pricing
@@modularinc Are you planning to move the Mojo SDK to Apache 2 and publish its code in Github eventually? If so, do you have a timeline for that?
@@ooxxoo-z7w We're committed to progressively making the source code of Mojo fully available over time, but unfortunately can't share a timeline at this point.
Still not very clear and confusing, language and core library is open source with apache license. But SDK that include compiler and debugger are not, which most developer consider part of the language. Nothing against any company make money on open source to sustain the effort that required continuous investment with time, man power and money. But let's say if I am only interesting to use mojo for CPU in general apps and compute, and GPU for graphic and games, and doesn't care about AI what so ever at all, it's still not very comforting SDK have different license and many string attached, and legal jargon attach to it. Mojo can and should be a better language then Rust for system programming, and the SDK license terms are a huge minus and bump for it's general adoption.
We appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and we understand that the difference in licenses between the SDK and standard library can be frustrating.
Our intention is to enable as many people as possible to build on MAX and Mojo and for them to have as high-quality an experience as possible. We believe the new license is the best way to do this, but we hear you on the confusion and frustration. Our pricing page ( www.modular.com/pricing ) also offers more details on the different licenses.
To clarify, if you intend on using “Mojo for CPU in general apps and compute, and GPU for graphics and games” to build something not commercially competitive with MAX Enterprise, you’re still 100% empowered to do so. We’re here to work with you - feel free to reach out about your use case if you have any concerns.
@@modularinc I dont' think with this sort of "muddy" license terms, the ecosystem will ever take off and third-party packages will increase over time, which defeat the goal of wider adaption, even language design and ergonomics is better then other languages. It's hard sell for large project that required major investment and organisation buy-in, it will be disqualify from potential tech stack even before reach legal department. Between mojo and zig, most developer would likely choose zig purely because of license, open source nature and community support, even mojo is more high level. Mojo can be a better, more clean design and modern version of "rust" with pythonic syntax. But without clear licences term and communication, what's open source and what's close source under commercial terms, the ecosystem will not flourish, "non-compete" clause is very vague definitions and doesn't inspire confidence with open source community. For the samme purpose avoid "free riding" FSL license is much better.
@@MW-mn1el We really appreciate the feedback! We've updated the license and FAQ page to be clearer, and we'll continue iterating based on community feedback.
just like matlab 😅
It’s nothing like Matlab since you can’t use Matlab for free. It’s closer to Wolfram engine if anything.
For real, this is what I would want to avoid lol
First like