171–179 of 179 posts
But ROCm has a DIFFERENT trick. It has it's own language that can be translated into CUDA or for other targets. If you use THAT language instead of CUDA you can get the effect of CUDA on Nvidia without the source being IN CUDA and you compile that language for AMD or INTEL.
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
I think they're trying to do the trick where they don't ban the emulation per se, but they make it a violation of the license to disassemble the code to understand how it works. Then they go after emulating projects for copyright infringement, since they must have violated copyright to get a compatible version running. It's a dirty trick IMO, but it has seen some mixed success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears from the comments here that just disassembling the nvidia code would NOT be a violation? it seems that only disassembling to use in a compatibility layer would be ? I believe, this 2 stage/project system was how DeCSS for DVDs worked? Someone cracked it and posted the code, which could them be picked up/used by others as it was 'public knowledge' or some such ??
It is already prohibited on copyright grounds. They put the extra clause to "close" some of the reverse engineering provisions not covered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears from the comments here that just disassembling the nvidia code would NOT be a violation? it seems that only disassembling to use in a compatibility layer would be ? I believe, this 2 stage/project system was how DeCSS for DVDs worked? Someone cracked it and posted the code, which could them be picked up/used by others as it was 'public knowledge' or some such ??
It is already prohibited on copyright grounds. They put the extra clause to "close" some of the reverse engineering provisions not covered.
What makes you think that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point with the level of demand they have, it might be easier and cheaper to just not do business in the EU.
Funny how nobody does that, eh?! Could be because the EU is the second biggest consumer market on this planet. But of course, they could totally focus on China, now third and rising, instead. Maybe they can even ask the CCP to help them with their IP claims and stuff.
Not sure where the weird China stuff came from. Are you saying that as long as the EU is even slightly better than China we should celebrate it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny how nobody does that, eh?! Could be because the EU is the second biggest consumer market on this planet. But of course, they could totally focus on China, now third and rising, instead. Maybe they can even ask the CCP to help them with their IP claims and stuff.
Or it could be because the EU has not yet reached the tipping point where it’s not worth it, or it could be that they have but companies are adapting by reducing investment and it will take years for patterns to emerge. Not sure where the weird China stuff came from. Are you saying that as long as the EU is even slightly better than China we should celebrate it?
No. I am saying, as long as the American market isn't enough for the growth necessities these giga corporations set themselves up to, they pretty much have no choice, but to go with the European market - since it's the second largest consumer market. And since the argument is about Nvidia being silly about IP stuff, the Chinese market - the third largest and therefore next best alternative to the European market - isn't exactly known to give a fuck about IP, at all, so good luck with that.
Also:
> EU has not yet reached...
> EU is even slightly better than China...
Jesus Christ. Throw your unread Atlas Shrugged copy into the cringe bin, and fucking touch some grass, for real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, 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 softw…
It’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…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlWT_TdOK6s
ran into this randomly, and just like the meltdown about how how "long-term value is mathematically impossible" this is another crazy video from one of the largest channels that literally exists just to snipe at NVIDIA over... something. Jump cuts back and forth etc.
it's just crazy to me that this seems to be the track GN is taking lately, they seem more interested in this stuff than factually-accurate reporting now...