5 ms·
This seems relevant for discussion: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips [1] ____ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/it
by dpflan 3y ago
This seems relevant for discussion:
Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips [1]
____
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39592689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39592689
- dotnet00 3y agoShould be emphasized again that contrary to the article's claim, the clause in question has been in CUDA's EULA, even in the downloads (contrary to the updated statement in the article), since Jan 2022.
- croes 3y agoMeans Nvidia is even longer anti competitive than we thought.
- contravariant 3y agoWait, you thought they started after 2022?
- mort96 3y agoDoes that even matter? It's not like you need someone's permission to implement a system with a compatible interface to another. It violates the EULA but you don't need to accept the EULA unless you download the CUDA software, which I guess the authors of ZLUDA could avoid doing
- jsheard 3y agoThe complication is that most CUDA apps you would want to run on ZLUDA contain first-party libraries provided by Nvidia (e.g. cuDNN) which may have restrictive license terms saying you're not allowed to run them on a third-party runtime. ZLUDA itself may be legally in the clear as a cleanroom reimplementation free of Nvidia code, but it's not so clear-cut for the users of ZLUDA.
- mort96 3y agoAha, so we'd need clean-room re-implementations of those libraries too, in principle.
- easyThrowaway 3y agoWhat's the difference between this and Wine/Proton? I guess Microsoft EULA has similar conditions, if they were enforceable wouldn't Microsoft do the same and send a C&D to Wine devs?
- parentheses 3y agoEULA permits the companies to have grounds to take someone to court. Their choice to prosecute. It's a reserved right more so than one that they use 100%. In this case translating CUDA can allow AMD to chip away at NVidia's market share.
- adastra22 3y agoNot if the person being sued never “signed” the EULA.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- LoganDark 3y agoNvidia cares about the people reverse-engineering CUDA, who don't have anything to reverse-engineer unless they actually download the SDK. Of course, when you download the SDK it has an associated license.
- TehCorwiz 3y agoIt's also possible to do a clean-room reverse where one group tests the hardware and software and writes specifications and another group who has never seen the hardware or docs then does the implementation. This has been legally tested and protected going back to at least the early 1980s.
- mandevil 3y agoIt is possible, but a) it is expensive as hell to get enough engineers whom you can prove in court have no exposure to the original software (most SWE's would get some exposure just naturally in college nowadays, leave alone at any sort of job) and b) CUDA is constantly changing and updating and so you need to have this expensive clean-room process going constantly or else you will fall behind. The most famous case of clean-room reverse engineering is for the original BIOS chips back in the early 1980's, where the chips themselves couldn't change- they were hardware! It's going to be orders of magnitude more difficult to do that for software packages that change regularly.
- adastra22 3y agoNVIDIA doesn’t have the authority to do that. There’s no NVIDIA SDK involved here.
- TehCorwiz 3y agoIf I'm not using Nvidia hardware, and I don't use Nvidia drivers, and I haven't agreed to their EULA then why would I care? Emulation is legally protected both explicitly and through legal precedence. The replication of APIs for compatibility purposes has been argued to the US Supreme Court and found to not be copyrightable. At least within some pretty broad scope. IANAL, but I fail to see what legal basis Nvidia is relying on. For a single user or company who owns no Nvidia hardware this feels moot. For a company with existing Nvidia hardware I could see them having an argument, kinda. But wouldn't that be squarely in the anti-competitive behavior wheelhouse?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago> But wouldn't that be squarely in the anti-competitive behavior wheelhouse? Precisely why they are making that statement. The goal is to threaten people who attempt to avoid CUDA
- jsheard 3y ago> If I'm not using Nvidia hardware, and I don't use Nvidia drivers, and I haven't agreed to their EULA then why would I care? If the CUDA software you want to run on ZLUDA contains first-party Nvidia libraries, which it usually does, you have to care about how those dependencies are licensed.
- TehCorwiz 3y agoYeah, I commented below at someone who mentioned that. I wasn't aware that people were distributing Nvidia binary libraries with their apps.
- Cheer2171 3y ago> If I'm not using Nvidia hardware, and I don't use Nvidia drivers, and I haven't agreed to their EULA then why would I care? So in your entire life, you have never downloaded an Nvidia driver and clicked through the EULA? Once you agree, you've agreed.
- 3y ago
- gsich 3y agoMy hardware - my rules.
- jrepinc 3y agoFsck you nvidia even more. Just going the same evil ways as Nintendo I see. Good thing I don't waste my money on your products.
- mtillman 3y agoI find myself more upset with AMD for completely dropping the ball on firmware and software. Almost intentional levels of incompetence.