25 ms·
Nvidia’s New Policy Limits GeForce Data Center Usage
- vinayan3 9y agoFor the longest time they have encouraged people to use Geforce cards for doing machine learning. Now they are changing the licensing and making it not okay for data centers is not gonna sit well with people. Especially with the carveout for Bitcoin miners. The number of customers who are impacted like the article points out will be mainly universities. This is bad move overall and isn't gonna gain them any good will with the community. Like seriously how many companies are out there are putting out Geforce cards into data centers? The big data centers from cloud computing platforms all use Tesla cards.
- wmf 9y agoThe fact that "humps" exist implies that quite a few people are putting GeForces in servers and not talking about it. https://www.servethehome.com/avert-your-eyes-from-the-server-humping-trend-in-the-data-center/ https://www.servethehome.com/avert-your-eyes-from-the-server...
- Rapzid 9y agoPlenty of people. You can find tons of articles on GeForce 1080 Ti based learning box builds.
- jamesblonde 9y agoHere's a figure on the scale-out you can get on the DeepLearning11 server (cost $15k) - it's about 60-80% of the performance of a DGX-1 for 1/10th of the price (for deep ConvNets and image classification, at least). https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/distributed-tensorflow https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/distributed-tensorflow
- jacquesm 9y agoThe exemption makes it even more ridiculous, not only do they want to restrict where you can use the software but they also want to have a say in what kind of applications you can use their software for. This besides the fact that Bitcoin on GPUs is fairly dead, it's almost entirely done on ASICs now. If you read the license agreement it states that the term applies to 'blockchain processing', not to bitcoin specifically.
- K0SM0S 9y agoIndeed. There are a number of "alt-coins" (blockchain-based cryptocurrencies other than bitcoin) designed to be "ASIC-resistant" e.g. by using the Lyra2REv2 algorithm.* This is notably the case of Monero and Monacoin, two popular cryptos in Japan. Generally, the Japanese and Koreans are very enthusiastic about cryptocurrencies in general. Cryptocurrency GPU-mining on Tesla cards would be outright unprofitable. These facts may contribute to Nvidia's decision not to displease Japanese GPU miners specifically. ____ * This is to avoid big ASIC farms as is the case of bitcoin (apparently, more than 70% of bitcoin's hash rate comes from China, most notably from a specific valley where electricity is dirt cheap). One purpose of ASIC-resistance is to maintain a high-enough degree of decentralization in mining, which increases security for the network/blockchain.
- le-mark 9y ago$20,000 btc can make mining on gpu's potentially profitable again, more so as the price goes up. If the price holds the 6 months or a year it takes to mine one is another matter entirely :)
- namlem 9y agoI think this is because they want people to use Titan V workstations. They know that the Titan V will cannibalize Tesla sales of they let people put them in data centers. It's still a shady move, but it makes sense.
- greglindahl 9y agoshady... shader... bad pun.
- forgotpassagan 9y agoIn good news, this may finally force a court case around EULA's, which basically everyone have known for a decade as bullshit. Having to agree to draconian terms to use something you own is ridiculous. If EULA's become enforceable there's nothing preventing a toaster maker from banning you from toasting bagels in your machine and countless other absurd usurious machinations. EULA 'shrinkwrap' license agreements are a scourge on the free market and should be banned unilaterally
- guitarbill 9y agoAgreed, however this depends heavily on jurisdiction. E.g. in Germany [0], license agreements presented after purchase are completely void anyway (although defining the moment of purchase for non-physical goods is tricky - not so for a graphics card though). So in Japan, maybe? [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endbenutzer-Lizenzvertrag https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endbenutzer-Lizenzvertrag
- gmueckl 9y agoWell, Geforce GPUs are advertised more heavily for graphics than computing. If I were nVidia I'd try to argue that CUDA and other GPU computing libraries are separate products not purchased with this line of GPUs.
- rrobukef 9y agoIf you don't pay for them and need a product is it really a purchase?
- nightski 9y agoI'm confused - does the EULA prevent use within one's own data center? Or is it just that a cloud computing service such as AWS or Azure cannot offer them? Because if it's the latter then the article doesn't hold nearly as much weight imo.
- acd 9y agoThe thing with EULAs is that you do not own the product. You are licensed to use the product under the company’s draconian terms. Agree that there needs to be new consumer laws protecting consumers. A contract used in the old times 1800s to be one to two pages of simple English that both parties negotiated the agreed terms on. Now EULas almost requires a degree in law to understand yet you abide to the terms under civil liability. Further more Eula’s are so long most people blind sign without reading and understanding the terms. There is also questions whether terms in Eula’s are legal such as limiting free speech about the product. In many countries free speech is a right regulated as basic first amendment laws. Can you limit free speech?
- gone35 9y agoJapanese original: https://wirelesswire.jp/2017/12/62658/ https://wirelesswire.jp/2017/12/62658/ -- Edit: Apparently it's just that GeForce cards have(/had?) no warranty for use in "data centers" --but academic use is not precluded in of itself: https://twitter.com/NVIDIAAIJP/status/943141204744585222 https://twitter.com/NVIDIAAIJP/status/943141204744585222 https://wirelesswire.jp/2017/12/62667/ https://wirelesswire.jp/2017/12/62667/ Still, the line is somewhat unclear, I wonder how many university/academic cluster admins are aware of the fact..
- Dylan16807 9y agoDatacenter conditions for GPU clocks/power/air tend to be gentler than desktop conditions, so the warranty just disappearing is far from justified. Edit: Ha, ridiculously unjustified if bitcoin mining is still covered.
- jo909 9y agoThis is the relevant change in the EULA you need to accept when downloading (installing?) the GeForce driver. The article is weirdly translated, this is apparently a global NVIDIA thing and not specific to "NVIDIA Japan". > No Datacenter Deployment. The SOFTWARE is not licensed for datacenter deployment, except that blockchain processing in a datacenter is permitted. Edit: http://www.nvidia.com/content/DriverDownload-March2009/licence.php?lang=us&type=GeForce http://www.nvidia.com/content/DriverDownload-March2009/licen... and https://www.geforce.com/drivers/license/geforce https://www.geforce.com/drivers/license/geforce
- dnautics 9y agoWhat if you write your own block chain where the POW is "do a deep learning task"?
- codeisawesome 9y agoThis is the concept behind openmined.org - the “miners” are rewarded for improving the gradient (the data is anonymised).
- make3 9y agocourts aren't (yet?) ruled by machines; you'll have a hard time arguing this to an actual human being
- dnautics 9y agoAnd an actual human judge is not going to sympathize with a have your cake and eat it too EULA like nvidias especially if the competitor is offering a product that is more efficient for the consumer
- f1notformula1 9y agoI'm not a legal expert and don't understand EULAs at all. I expected a "Datacenter" to be defined at some point but I didn't see a definition in the EULA. How should one interpret this? Is a research cluster a datacenter? How about a rack of a few dozen machines I built by hand? I've been in university research groups that had both options. Somewhat maddening to have a single line in the EULA that's so open to interpretation.
- ai_ja_nai 9y agoSo, it's just of matter of reverse engineering the driver?
- Spivak 9y agoOr just using it despite the EULA? It's not like the driver knows where the server is physically located.
- owl57 9y ago> It's not like the driver knows where the server is physically located. Well, it probably currently doesn't guess the server location, but it doesn't seem impossible or even hard if they think it's useful to them.
- m3kw9 9y agoI can see the reason they are making this move is because the supply of GeForce Video cards is being used up for things other than Graphics duty like mining block chains or AI training. It’s probably a desperate supply move
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jameskegel 9y agoUnless we're talking about the Tesla cards, nVidia is about the worst of the GPU class as far as mining goes. Nobody uses it aside from people who are exceedingly frugal to their own detriment. There is a reason why their prices aren't scaling linearly with the mining boom like AMD, because they are not as good as AMD in most cases.
- mickronome 9y agoWhile I think it's probably part of the reason, if it was the only reason there are bound to be other less customer hostile ways of solving that particular problem.
- freeone3000 9y agoThey can't price-differentiate FP64 compute out, since ML uses FP32 or even FP16. They tried discriminating FP16 performance but frameworks switched to using FP32 units and downconverting to FP16 after. They can't kill FP32 performance since that's used for gaming. They tried killing the virtualization, they tried differentiating based on clustering, they tried every reasonable technical procedure. This seems consumer-hostile because the entire thing is consumer-hostile - they want ML researchers to pay more for graphics cards because they have more money to spend, not because they can offer superior performance. (They can offer superior performance to GeForce, just not superior performance/$ or performance/W.)
- m3kw9 9y agoYou cannot just look at that, the Tesla’s have bigger memory bandwidth and bigger memory which can help to utilize the GPUs better by having faster access to more data
- matt4711 9y agoI thought the NVIDIA drivers for the more fancy cards (TITAN etc) are the same as for the gforce cards. Wouldn't this restriction apply to those cards as well? Doesn't make much sense to me...
- leggomylibro 9y agoThat is probably the point. They want to sell two fungible products while enforcing a pricing hurdle so that certain types of customers have to pay much more for the same performance.
- freeone3000 9y agoThey can't price-differentiate FP64 compute out, since ML uses FP32 or even FP16. They tried discriminating FP16 performance but frameworks switched to using FP32 units and downconverting to FP16 after. They can't kill FP32 performance since that's used for gaming. They tried killing the virtualization, they tried differentiating based on clustering, they tried every reasonable technical procedure. So now they're falling back to legal means, to defend an artificial price distinction that has no reflection in card features that anyone cares about.
- wmf 9y agoIn the future, Teslas will have Tensor Cores and GeForces won't, so deep learning will be much faster (but also much more expensive, so it kind of cancels out) on Tesla cards.
- leggomylibro 9y agoYeah, doesn't it seem a little weird that they seem to want to enforce the distinction between gaming and industrial cards, but they also went ahead and included tensor cores in that new Titan card? Did they not think that through and have an 'oh shit' moment when they saw all the news articles or something? Or is this a 'the first hit is free' sort of deal where they want people to learn about using the product on a startup budget, without giving up the ability to squeeze if someone has a good idea and wants to scale?
- jacquesm 9y agoIf true then Nvidia has gone nuts. There is no way that they can control what end users of their products do with their products and/or their software post download to the extent where they are going to have a say in what locality you can use their software and where not. Utterly ridiculous. For a company that has seen my solid support so far I'm extremely disappointed. Could someone fluent in Japanese please confirm the claim in the title?
- sabalaba 9y agoIt's true, here is the updated license: http://www.nvidia.com/content/DriverDownload-March2009/licence.php?lang=us&type=GeForce http://www.nvidia.com/content/DriverDownload-March2009/licen.... Text: No Datacenter Deployment. The SOFTWARE is not licensed for datacenter deployment, except that blockchain processing in a datacenter is permitted.
- jacquesm 9y agoSo, once again proof that open source is the only way to go.
- freeone3000 9y agoOpen-source drivers don't even support Tesla, not to mention Volta. An EULA challenge seems to the way to go here. I'll be emailing legal for advice once I get back to work.
- SauciestGNU 9y agoI think the point is less using nouveau drivers for nvidia hardware as it is we should have never accepted CUDA as a standard since the implementation isn't free. Proprietary standards leave us at the mercy of the owners.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 9y ago
- znpy 9y agoCurious coincidence... I was thinking of something similar earlier today. What is physical object had EULA licenses like, software ? Something more-or-less serious, like "you are not allowed to use this knife to eat meat", or "you are not allowed to use this spoon to eat jelly" or even "it is forbidden to publish a benchmark of this car" (related to an article that passed here on hn like a week ago). Would such EULA licenses be enforceable ? And so, assuming companies would be allowed to enforce clearly ridiculous terms, what does this tell us about software licenses ?
- dchest 9y agoPhysical objects are sold. Software (GPU drivers) is subject of copyright law — it's licensed.
- iamnothere 9y agoMany (most?) new high-end consumer products run on software now. Your car, your fridge, your washing machine, your thermostat, etc. You do own the product, but they could make you "activate" the software license using the web, with an included EULA to click through. I suspect we will see some abuse of this in the future.
- calgoo 9y agoI would compare it to: you can't use this tv to watch Fox news because Samsung does not like the LG ads they run.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoDid they do a find/replace of “NVidia” to “NVidia Japan”? It is strange to attribute everything to the subsidiary.
- mgnn 9y agoThe original Japanese posted elsewhere does not make the distinction; it's just NVIDIA. So, it's a translation thing?
- tomc1985 9y agoSo... fuck the license agreement. They can't sue everyone.
- tomc1985 9y agoAlso, in the US at least, doctrine of first sale means NVIDIA's power in this space should be close to nothing.
- mindslight 9y agoIt's so weird to see the responses in this thread of people saying they're going to ask their legal department. Have fun when your self-justifying legal department turns around and dictates the company can only buy the more expensive cards, they now want to review the legalese bombs for everything else, etc. Just ignore the wordbarfs as the UPPER CASE INCOHERENT SHOUTING THEY ARE. Everybody knows that nobody reads "EULA"s, and a meeting of minds is a necessary requirement for there to even be a contract. These fantasy "terms" literally only exist to the extent we acknowledge and dwell on them!
- tomc1985 9y agoThis is more about making a statement of defiance against openly monopolistic and abusive terms, about showing companies that they do not get to twist around the market like this. Show them that customers are in charge, and that companies are mere stewards
- zaroth 9y agoI can see how you might try to limit warranty claims under unapproved operating conditions (like 24/7 100% duty cycle) but this is a bridge too far.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bearjaws 9y agoSo if a data center is using these cards, and is eventually forced to install a newer driver, they are now in violation? That seems a bit insane to have used a product that then ammends its own EULA to prevent you from using it entirely...
- TheGrumpyBrit 9y agoThe simple solution is to have some simple software that processes a blockchain in some low priority way in order to easily bring you back into a licensed state.
- pzxc 9y agoFrom a sales point of view, Nvidia actually doesn't care that much about researchers, they make up a small percentage of sales. They care about gamers (VR has been a big help), and especially cryptocurrency mining where customers will buy multiple video cards at a time (kaching). There are even blockchains now that are resistant to ASIC mining, where GPU mining is the best again. (BTG for example) I suspect that from Nvidia's viewpoint, cloud providers are a middleman and make GPU usage more efficient, which threatens sales. Why should I, ask a cryptocurrency miner, buy 4 new video cards when I can rent unused time that has already been paid for by someone else at the data center? (if the cost is cheaper, which sometimes it is) Though I question how they intend to enforce this new provision of theirs given that GPU cloud usage is already widespread.
- vinayan3 9y agoThe inverse I think might be true. If the GPUs are much more accessible on the cloud, deployment and placement problems handled, then more developers will be comfortable building around that. Otherwise, it's a massive hassle to have physical machines with specialized hardware.
- nightcracker 9y agoThis is just a blatant attempt to sell the exact same product to two different types of customers at different prices based on their (presumed) willingness to spend. Actually it's worse. It's an attempt to cripple a perfectly functioning cheap product aimed at a different audience (gamers) for another audience (machine learning folks) in order to drive them to more expensive products that do the same thing. Pure greed.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoYou’re going be surprised how CPUs are price segmented in that case (they’re cut from the same wafers and priced by the clock frequency QA validates at). Price semgnentation isn’t necessarily bad; you want to segment your product in order to maximize revenue across all possible customers; this is just a more egregious/bold attempt at doing so (and is hopefully prevented by a court).
- bubblethink 9y agoNVIDIA already does some form of segmentation with Quadro cards (i.e., artificially crippling things in driver/firmware). They have complete control over firmware, drivers and CUDA. More than the EULA, it's likely that they'll differentiate in software. For eg., CuDNN may stop working on GeForce, or some rubbish like that.
- xigency 9y agoBinning CPUs on clock frequency or number of functioning cores is a bit different. If you compared it to a precious metal, the higher price CPUs have fewer imperfections, therefore they cost more. The fact that they carry different product numbers is a bit misleading but the price segmentation actually makes sense.
- jdietrich 9y agoThe binning is a bit arbitrary, hence overclocking. A large proportion of parts that are binned to a certain clock speed will perform perfectly well at higher clocks. Bins are decided and priced based mostly on marketing rather than fab yields. Intel disable a lot of features on low-end chips, which has nothing to do with yield management. There's no technical reason to disable vPro and Turbo Boost on Core i3 chips.
- caf 9y agoIf they manage to stick this - which is a big if - wouldn't that just cause a major pivot of interest to ML on AMD? Sure, OpenCL is very much the poor cousin right now, but an 8x cost hike is a pretty strong incentive to look around for your Best Alternative Elsewhere.
- lathiat 9y agoRealistically, this change is most likely aimed at "forcing" the hand of very large companies to co-operate with using Tesla instead of GeForce-based stuff. Think Amazon, Large Supercomputers, etc. They probably won't care or chase the smaller folks (be careful if you get too big though :-) I wonder if these terms are also on the Linux downloads?
- kelnos 9y agoIn the case of Amazon, who is responsible? Amazon might provide the hardware to their customer via an EC2 instance, but it's the end customer who downloads, installs, and uses the driver. The EULA restriction is on using the driver, not the hardware.
- lathiat 9y agoThis is true, but (1) Amazon likely has special agreements with NVIDIA for all sorts of reasons, if they did this kind of thing against NVIDIAs wishes they'd just push back with those agreements (e.g. pricing on proper GPUs, etc) (2) Many big customers won't like it This kind of behavior works best for smaller players, who are the ones they don't really care about either.
- sabalaba 9y agoThis should be a rallying cry to the developer community to stop using software with restrictive licenses. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw “Join us now and share the software!” In all seriousness anybody using CUDA should immediately start checking out and contributing to ROCm, AMD’s Open Source Compute Platform: https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCm https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCm
- cheeze 9y agoWhile I agree with you, saying things like "dirty software hoarders" kind of kills your message.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kyledrake 9y agoI don't know if this article is correct, sans a legal/safety reason or a warranty void. Doesn't seem like something Nvidia could legally prevent you from doing. That said, I use GeForce GPUs in production datacenters and this wouldn't stop me. I put a dummy load on the display output and use them to take screenshots of web sites with WebGL for Neocities. It's the only way to really do it. The Tesla blowtorches are just for ML crunching, I don't think they work for what I use datacenter GPUs for. Also my datacenter power connection I get would trip under the Tesla's power requirements, to say nothing of the costs. Might as well plug a Tesla car in while I'm at it.
- KaoruAoiShiho 9y agoI wouldn't call a uni's server room a "datacenter". NVIDIA should clarify that it doesn't apply to experimental researchers.
- sabalaba 9y agoDevelopers should be mad about this. Here's where to start contributing to open alternatives: ROCm: https://rocm.github.io/ https://rocm.github.io/ OpenCL: https://www.khronos.org/opencl/ https://www.khronos.org/opencl/ TensorFlow: https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow Nouveau: https://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/ https://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/
- reilly3000 9y agoTensorFlow depends exclusively (st time of writing) on CUDA for GPU acceleration. Leaning on them to support OpenCL fully would unlock the world of AMD GPUs that are move affordable and don’t have the same crazy EULA. I regret having bought GeForce cards for machine learning now...
- matt4077 9y agoInstead of “leaning on them”, you can submit patches. The OpenCL effort is well underway, and pull requests are accepted every day.
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago>Instead of “leaning on them”, you can submit patches Do yo know that he has the right skill set or the time to maintain the code for years to come? Do you know that the effort would be economically viable for him like it could be for AMD or perhaps Google? If not then I would prefer if he didn't submit a patch, because he would be wasting everyone's time. Sometimes the best contribution you can make to an open source project is to express your interest in particular features so that those who really can submit a patch know that there is demand for it.
- larrykwg 9y agoTensorFlow also supports Intel Xeon Phi as an alternative https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/tensorflow-optimizations-on-modern-intel-architecture https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/tensorflow-optimiz...
- mr_toad 9y agoDoes this apply to just the GeForce app, or the drivers themselves? If it’s just the app you can always manually install drivers. And how does it affect Linux kernel drivers?
- tudorconstantin 9y agoI wonder how this can be enforced? How will nvidia know how its users are using the GPUs? How will they know if a GPU sits in a datacenter, or in a desktop with xeon CPUs?
- duncan_bayne 9y agoAnd here it is again: https://xkcd.com/743/ https://xkcd.com/743/ "It's the world's tiniest open-source violin." As much as I disagree with most of RMS's politics, the man has been proved right time and time again with respect to the dangers of building on proprietary software. This is just the latest in a long, long line of outrages. When will we as a development community quit this weird Stockholm-syndrome-like relationship with proprietary systems vendors? Build on NVidia, build on iOS, build on OSX, build on Windows, that's fine. It's your call. But don't act surprised when you discover the real nature of the extant power relationship.
- pjmlp 9y ago> When will we as a development community quit this weird Stockholm-syndrome-like relationship with proprietary systems vendors? When most companies stop treating open source as a way to decrease their development costs, or as a legal way of doing piracy. I was big into open source for a decade, but it hardly payed most bills. Only software that requires consulting, training, or can be hidden behind a server wall is profitable as open source. And since the supermarket lady and my landlord don't take pull requests, I build for systems vendors.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoI think you may have missed my point (which in turn implies I didn't explain it well ;) ). What I meant was: if you're building a system for your own use (including things like ML platforms and SaaS sites) why pick a target platform that is known hostile?
- dharma1 9y agoWas wondering how long until they pull off something like this. I've seen startups (and some established hosting companies) offering cloud and bare metal GPU with GeForce cards - which are far cheaper than the official datacentre cards Nvidia sell. On the positive side, hopefully this will mean a consumer GeForce Tesla soon, now that they think it won't cannibalise their datacentre GPU sales. I really wish ROCm worked seamlessly and they had some competition.
- larrykwg 9y agoThey already were artificially limiting virtualization on GeForce cards and were always pointing to their data center cards when asked about it. It goes as far as the physical location of the power connectors on the top of the card so it doesn't fit in a server/rack case. I imagine it makes sense from their point of view, the data center cards like tesla are ridiculously more expensive than the consumer cards. NVIDIA was never really a consumer friendly company, instead of cooperating on open standards they always went their own proprietary way. Thats the obvious danger when a company becomes the de-facto standard in some area, they exploit their position for profit. That can't possibly be still a surprise to anyone.
- syshum 9y agoThis is problem I have with Driver EULA's. If I buy Hardware today under terms X, should the manufacturer of the hardware be allowed to unilaterally change the terms in order for me to continue to use that hardware securely and effectively, which would require updates to fix bugs and vulnerabilities created by the manufacturer. Basically if I buy a GPU, discover a bug in the product, can nvidia hold that bug fix hostage and refuse to fix the product I bought under 1 set of terms until I agree to a new set of terms At a minimum I believe the manufacturer should be required to refund, full original purchase price, of any product which they change the terms to anyone that objects to the new terms even if the new terms come out YEARS after the product was sold and well outside any warranty period
- zvrba 9y agoMore interestingly: the targeted datacenters have installed drivers with EULA that didn't include this clause. So if they don't upgrade the drivers, they should be OK?
- godman_8 9y agoHell ya, more reason for people to switch to AMD.
- tfolbrecht 9y agoTypical HN kneejerk comments. The GeForce series cards are designed, spec'd, priced for consumer usage. Nvidia has to warranty and guarantee what they sell, consumer confidence is important. When you're doing ML or blockchain Proof-of-Work the card becomes a consumable. Is it fair for manufacturers to guarantee them like they would a consumer desktop or gaming GPU? You expect people who play with ML in their free time to subsidize your GPU cluster? That said, hope this gets people angry enough to make TF support OpenCL. CUDA is too pervasive.
- samfisher83 9y agoThey want people to buy their more expensive card for ML stuff. The silicon probably isn't all that different.
- tfolbrecht 9y agoNot all chips are born equal and that's why faulty/poor performance cores and components are deactivated and chips sold in tiers. Look into it, same silicon on paper, but not on silicon. The problem comes from those specs and the warranties, guarantees, consumer protection, etc. So decide, overbuilt GPUs (more expensive), firmware gimped GPUs (less performant), or non warrantied( risky ).
- yuhong 9y agoOne of the benefits of the AMD-ATI acquisition is that they can weather GPU shortage/oversupply more easily. I assume that NVIDIA is worried about an oversupply of GeForce GPUs when the mining boom ends, right?
- ezoe 9y agoI really can't understand how could this license change not mentioned at all previously in Non-Japan countries. This issue has been widely known because a famous[citation needed] Japanese entrepreneur accuse NVIDIA for the recent silent license change.
- okadahiroshi 9y agoThis EULA change are not acceptable. For example: If a game developer creates gameplay video for customers at the data center it will be the violation of the EULA.
- danijoo 9y agoWhen does a bunch of servers become a datacenter though? When a university group runs their own servers that only the group has access to, is it a datacenter? If I buy 2 servers and put it in my basement, is it a datacenter? What if its only one server?
- jaimex2 9y agoGood luck enforcing this nVidia.
- mlosapio 9y agoWhat’s the tl/dr on this?
- ceperez 9y agoProblem solved. Just run these GPUs as part of a decentralized P2P application (aka Blockchain). See http://intuitionfabric.com http://intuitionfabric.com Let the masses contribute their GPU power to enable Deep Learning training and inference.