• dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    I read the article, and a few points stuck out to me:

    1. This has been a restriction since 2021; now it’s documented in the files and not just the online EULA (ie consistent)
    2. This is a protection to disallow other companies like Intel and AMD from profiting off of Nvidia’s work
    3. Nothing is stopping anybody from porting the software to other hardware, eg

    Recompiling existing CUDA programs remains perfectly legal. To simplify this, both AMD and Intel have tools to port CUDA programs to their ROCm (1) and OpenAPI platforms, respectively.

    I’m all for piracy and personal freedoms, but it doesn’t seem to be what this is about. It’s about combating other companies profiting off Nvidia’s work. Companies should be able to fight back against other companies (or countries).

    I mean it’s not like Nvidia is unreasonably suing open-source projects into oblivion or anything, or subpoenaing websites for user data; at least, not yet.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Their motive is likely more profit but the result is an unjust restriction on user software freedom. It doesn’t matter if they make less money, maximising profit is not why we grant them copyright. Nvidia is often unreasonable, fuck off Nvidia.

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      There’s a good argument that Nvidia only had the money to do the work because of anticompetitive practices, and so shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from it unless everyone’s allowed to benefit from it, otherwise it’s just cementing their dominant position further.