Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 179 posts

Re: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

#81

Post by marshray »

wzdd wrote: post #58

This doesn't appear to ban using translation layers. The text is "You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble any portion of the output generated using Software elements for the purpose of translating such output artifacts to target a non-Nvidia platform". That would appear to (attempt to -- it may not be enforceable) restrict the creation of translation layers. I don't understand how you could infer "bans…

It's almost like they wrote it specifically to be invalid under a compatibility exception.

Re: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

#82

Post by mordae »

SomeHacker44 wrote: post #9

IANAL, but I don't see how this can be enforced (in the US) given the legal history of emulation. This is effectively just emulation. c.f., https://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/Licensing

Reversing in order to achieve interop is explicitly legal in EU. Well unless you have to break DRM in process.

Re: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

#83

Post by croes »

wzdd wrote: post #58

This doesn't appear to ban using translation layers. The text is "You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble any portion of the output generated using Software elements for the purpose of translating such output artifacts to target a non-Nvidia platform". That would appear to (attempt to -- it may not be enforceable) restrict the creation of translation layers. I don't understand how you could infer "bans…

>Dark API functions are reverse-engineered and implemented by ZLUDA on a case-by-case basis once we observe an application making use of it.

https://github.com/vosen/ZLUDA/blob/master/ARCHITECTURE.md

Re: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

#84

Post by [deleted] »

bee_rider wrote: post #51
whatshisface wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit like saying "the slaves in the roman silver mines didn't want to rebel." Maybe a decade ago it was because they didn't care about abstract ideals like software freedom, but now they are well and truly stuck, and can serve only as a cautionary tale to other industries.

Nvidia offers an attractive product with strings attached, we very well could call it anti-competitive. But it is not very similar to slavery, nobody is getting beaten or chained up, the “victims” are willing participants. Maybe some comparison to company stores could be warranted…

[deleted]

Re: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

#85

Post by williamDafoe »

They will lose in court. I am reminded of IBM trying to ban 3rd party disk drive makers for from making disks that fit the IBM disk interface in the 1960s. They lost, too. However, ZLUDA may have to do a clean room reimplementation of all of CUDA, like google did with their javascript reimplementation, however ...

Re: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

#86

Post by vidarh »

nottorp wrote: post #59
jjice wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like they lost [0], with Google winning 6-2, but maybe Oracle is trying to appeal it? I'm not familiar with the remanding process so I can't comment on that part of this quote. > In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–2 decision that Google's use of the Java APIs fell within the four factors of fair use, bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. The decision reversed the Federal Circuit…

Oh interesting. The last piece of news I read was probably the decision before that, that ruled in Oracle's favour. Blame Covid. So is it final, or they can still drag it on? From wikipedia: "Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion. Breyer's opinion began with the assumption that the APIs may be copyrightable , and thus proceeded with a review of the four factors that contributed to fair use:" That doesn't…

It's fairly typical that the court wanted to make the narrowest decision possible. By conclusion that *even under the assumption they _may_ copyrightable, Google didn't violate copyright they saved themselves the hassle of deciding on the copyright issue.

Re: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

#87

Post by ender341341 »

nottorp wrote: post #59
jjice wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like they lost [0], with Google winning 6-2, but maybe Oracle is trying to appeal it? I'm not familiar with the remanding process so I can't comment on that part of this quote. > In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–2 decision that Google's use of the Java APIs fell within the four factors of fair use, bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. The decision reversed the Federal Circuit…

Oh interesting. The last piece of news I read was probably the decision before that, that ruled in Oracle's favour. Blame Covid. So is it final, or they can still drag it on? From wikipedia: "Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion. Breyer's opinion began with the assumption that the APIs may be copyrightable , and thus proceeded with a review of the four factors that contributed to fair use:" That doesn't…

My (non-lawyer) take on that is when they say

"began with the assumption that the APIs may be copyrightable, and thus proceeded with a review of the four factors that contributed to fair use"

is that they're not saying APIs are copyrightable and basically ignored that question because they ruled that even if they are copyrightable googles use would be fair use and oracle doesn't have a case.

it's a fairly common method cases are resolved, you say "assuming the plaintiff claims are all true, do they actually have cause of action for a lawsuit?"

Re: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

#88

Post by renewiltord »

jstanley wrote: post #4

People keep using proprietary software and keep getting burned by it. When will we learn?

Who's getting burned? It's the best stack to build on.

The only ones getting burned are the third-party guys who want adoption.

Re: Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips

#89

Post by whatshisface »

dotnet00 wrote: post #63
whatshisface wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investment is not rewarded until the platform is used, which won't be until investments are made... it's a multi billion dollar chicken and egg problem that only could have been averted a decade ago by consumers refusing to be locked in to a proprietary standard.

A decade ago, CUDA was still offering a more usable platform than the competition. The problem could only have been averted if AMD had properly committed to investing in their platform at least decade ago, just as NVIDIA has been doing for almost 2 decades now.

A decade ago, CUDA was better, but I don't think the industry had crossed the threshold of being stuck on it. AMD still had the option of investing to catch up, and there would have been the possibility of an industry consortium. Now, with the whole ML stack having been optimized over ten years of rapid development for a single proprietary standard, and especially with the deliberate obstructionism exemplified by the linked article, it is much less likely that a consortium or competitor could catch up.
Post reply on HN