4 ms·
This just seems to be a poorly researched knee-jerk article written based on a single off-hand tweet from 2 weeks ago, citing a clause that has been around for
by dotnet00 3y ago
This just seems to be a poorly researched knee-jerk article written based on a single off-hand tweet from 2 weeks ago, citing a clause that has been around for years, and thus obviously is not in response to something talked about 3 weeks ago.
As an example, the license here has the exact phrase, on a file last changed 2 years ago: https://github.com/NVIDIA/spark-rapids-container/blob/dev/NOTICE-binary https://github.com/NVIDIA/spark-rapids-container/blob/dev/NO...
The EULA here, listed as last updated in 2021, also has this clause: https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/eula/index.html https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/eula/index.html
- mvdtnz 3y agoI think you're focused too much on when this clause was added. Most of us are not so concerned with the chronology.
- germandiago 3y agoYet the article seems to imply they did it recently also according to my understanding, which is misleading.
- dotnet00 3y agoI'm focused on what the article, and the full headline claims. "Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips — new restriction apparently targets some Chinese GPU makers and ZLUDA" The time the clause was added also matters, because if it's ~3 years old and since then various translation layers backed by other large competitors have been released without any open lawsuit, it's a lot less concerning than if the clause were added right now, as, at least to me, it suggests that they're not talking about simply copying the API based on documentation and known quirks, but reverse engineering how the internals function for the purposes of a translation layer (eg same thing as MS banning reverse engineering of Windows for the purpose of adding the functionality to Wine, but tolerating clean room reimplementations).
- AstralStorm 3y agoI'm pretty sure that would be a dead clause since it is more restrictive than reverse engineering for compatibility, and every GPU and CPU is internally a translation layer... So, it's essentially a clause flying in the face of antitrust law. NVidia wants to try it in court and pay more fines? Let's go. :)
- Zetobal 3y ago[flagged]
- salawat 3y agoMore like " I refuse to be held hostage by your delusional business model" more like. I bought two GTX 970's, and a GTX 1030. Then I did the research on how they actually worked and the nefarious things the company got up to in order to spoliate open source drivers. The minute they switched to secritful Falcon units, is when any pretense of good faith was thrown out the door. They cheated me out of 3 graphics cards worth of functionality. I can accept "not yet implemented". I will not accept "predatory board forces you to do business with me forever". No mad conception of IP justifies that.
- Zetobal 3y ago[flagged]
- salawat 3y agoOh yes. Because Nvidia so proudly and eloquently states "I engage in anti-competitive practices." Yes, it is my fault, but dare I say, how many 20 somethings do you know that come chock full of sufficient life experience to identify hostile/predatory business models? I don't see many at all. And for that matter, in order to get the information I now have, I had to dive through half-a-dozen search engines in order to find architecture information that was NDA'd, but nevertheless left open to be indexed by someone. So yeah. There's uninformed, but goddamn if that doesn't seem to be Nvidia's modus operandi.
- charcircuit 3y ago>nefarious things the company got up to in order to spoliate open source projects Nvidia hasn't attempted to destroy open source drivers. In fact they work with open source drivers such as nouveau and mesa. >They cheated me out of 3 graphics cards worth of functionality. The cards work fine with Nvidia's drivers. You are only cheating yourself if you refuse to use them for some reason.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y agoWell, never mind the date, the clause just doesn't say what the article author claims it to say, not even close ... It doesn't say you can't run CUDA code via a CUDA comabability layer - it says you can't reverse engineer CUDA code in order to translate it to something else (i.e. NOT CUDA) to run on non-NVIDIA hardware. It's almost the exact opposite of what the article claims - the only way to legally run CUDA software on non-NVIDA hardware would in fact be to leave it as-is and run via a compatibility layer!!
- paulmd 3y agoIt’s a constant problem with nvidia articles, sites love to make up unapologetic bullshit or cite ancient stuff as if it’s new. A few months ago all the internet sites were abuzz with jensen’s “recent” comment that “nvidia is fully focused on ai now” and the article that is from makes it clear that it happened in the “mid 2010s”. Gamersnexus actually had the citation on the screen with “by the mid 2010s” literally on screen, they still went with “recently” and refused to issue a correction or retraction (I asked). https://youtu.be/VSSb-t76EpU?t=147 https://youtu.be/VSSb-t76EpU?t=147 Similarly, the “nvidia sells directly to mining farms!” articles from a few years ago, were citing an article that was an estimate of mining sales based on the hash rate… it never accused anyone of selling anything to anyone, but tech media didn’t bother reading the source, and once the first article got rolling everyone just cited that instead. https://twitter.com/dylan522p/status/1332502890104188929 https://twitter.com/dylan522p/status/1332502890104188929 Just like with apple “parts/defect stories” news sites know these are potent money-makers that drive a lot of clicks, and frankly I think there is a lot of open fanboyism and hostility among tech media today. GN didn’t “accidentally” refuse to do a correction, they want to push that narrative. Just like the “long-term value is mathematically impossible” etc - we have been in a world where reviewers are openly feuding with one of the vendors for over a half decade over the direction of product development and the death of Moores law in terms of pricing and performance increases. Winning rhetorical points in that debate is more important to tech media nowadays than little things like journalistic integrity, or reading your sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu7pxJXBBn8&t=273s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu7pxJXBBn8&t=273s
- 3y ago
- byteknight 3y agoAgreed that that may be deceptive, but the underlying issue remains. It is prohibited.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- loup-vaillant 3y agoIs it? I mean, is the clause enforceable to begin with?
- thethimble 3y agoFeels similar to the Microsoft vs. Sun lawsuit over Java which Sun won and eventually led to Microsoft building .NET
- ImprobableTruth 3y agoMS vs Sun was about MS doing their usual EEE thing and adding parts to MS Java that weren't part of the spec (which is why it was also a trademark lawsuit). Google vs Oracle is about whether APIs are copyrightable and Google won.
- tzs 3y agoThe article has been updated to clarify: > Nvidia has banned running CUDA-based software on other hardware platforms using translation layers in its licensing terms listed online, but those warnings previously weren't included in the documentation placed on a host system during the installation process. This language has now been added to newer versions of CUDA.
- dotnet00 3y agoThat still doesn't seem accurate. I have CUDA 11.6 on my machine from Dec 2021, just checked the EULA included there, and it did have the mentioned clause there too.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Aloisius 3y agoIt was in fact added to the EULA.txt file in 11.6. The header says it was updated October 8, 2021. % diff EULA.txt-11.5 EULA.txt-11.6 |grep -2 trans > 8. You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble > any portion of the output generated using SDK elements for > the purpose of translating such output artifacts to target > a non-NVIDIA platform. That said, I believe 11.6 was released in January, 2022.