111–120 of 155 posts
So, it's just of matter of reverse engineering the driver?
Or just using it despite the EULA? 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 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.
They have just released the new Titan V, which has Tensor Cores I believe. That would indicate that they do want to include them in non workstation/dedicated ML cards, no?
[0] https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-titan-v-transforms...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 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 specific…
Indeed. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You get that pretty much everywhere that used to be British common law iirc, and it’s why contracts frequently define seemingly minor and silly terms, ones which are obvious such as “the undersigned“ and all manner of the seemingly banal. In essence the contract is first and foremost agreeing on the same language, to express a commitment which ideally all parties are fully cognizant of. Edit: spelling
Also there is no punitive damages in U.K. law. So what’s the worst that could happen? Would you put them back in the position they would have been had the contract not existed, so give the cards back plus a contribution towards depreciation? Would be interesting if someone with legal knowledge could chime in.
Of course, a counterclaim for existing owners would be that the product they purchased was licensed for DC usage at time the contract was entered into, and so the original rights cannot be unilaterally revoked without consent.
Curious 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…
So 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...
Curious 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…
If 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…
It's true, here is the updated license: 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.
EDIT: just tried to download a driver, and this is the page that gets displayed.
This 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 host…