News Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips — new restriction apparently targets ZLUDA and some Chinese GPU makers

[Admin]

Nvidia makes it illegal to run CUDA software using translation layers on other platforms.

Nvidia bans using translation layers for CUDA software to run on other chips — new restriction apparently targets ZLUDA and some Chinese GPU makers : Read more

 

[Order 66]

This doesn't surprise me one bit. Tell me something surprising that Nvidia has done recently.

 

[umeng2002_2]

The terms say "you." But it doesn't expressly prevent you from using translators made by someone else.

 

[_sh4dow_]

Don't some countries, like Germany, have laws explicitly allowing reverse engineering for the purpose of achieving software compatibility in spite of any ToS restrictions?

 

[ivan_vy]

"(unless one already has all the low-level details about Nvidia GPU architectures by stealing them)"
not everything need to be stolen, poaching engineers is somewhat nefarious or gray area but kinda legal, ALL the companies do that, also people can choose who to work for, look at Jim Keller working with everyone and their neighbor.
A little bit less of bias would be welcomed in the articles.

 

[samopa]

Why one would use translator that possibly slower, and likely to be buggy, where one can recompile (not reprograms) their code to run natively, and possibly faster, on their target platform ?

 

[AchakBrooks]

Nvidia is not the “root” in the hierarchy of “system”, yet they continually want to be this through their business practices. When they invest and become an “Apple type” then fine, be what they want.

This type of limitation they want to set, kinda shows they are not confident in their hardware, and hints at their public sale pitch/reasoning to sell their hardware they way they do is just a grassy mountain built on a land fill.

Honestly, maybe…. since they are building to be the “all in one/apple type” with their networking systems. Companies investing in such and seeing more publicly visible options, are more impowered to weigh those “options” based off the value of Nvidia’s “software” vs ”hardware” benefits over others that can harness the “software” side; would hurt Nvidia’s negotiation power no?

PS: i have a passionate hate built up over decades towards everything Nvidia does so it’s hard to take a step back and give “the benefit of the doubt” or “this is the law so…”

 

[Pierce2623]

The various governments of the world totally screwed up by letting the era of “you bought a piece of hardware and you bought a piece of software . Use them however you choose because they’re yours now” go away. Licensing on software and hardware ruined everything.

 

[DiegoSynth]

Why one would use translator that possibly slower, and likely to be buggy, where one can recompile (not reprograms) their code to run natively, and possibly faster, on their target platform ?

Because developers will not do it. Specially huge corporations like 3D software makers.
And because AMD / Intel users have the right to use their cards with these programs.

 

[DiegoSynth]

Nvidia? The ones building for AI, which steals from creators? They are crying now?! Aw, maybe they need a bit of cream in their asses; must be irritated xD

 

[NinoPino]

I agree with the conclusion of the article. Nvidia should open CUDA to other hardware and search for alliances, instead they closes it further. Imho is too late to use this strategy, especially after Intel consolidated Arc ecosystem and AMD proved MI300 capabilities and continued to improve ROCm.

 

[CSMajor]

I say this as a oneAPI homer (I work at Intel), this is like the 3rd time it's come up and linked as OpenAPI (which is something totally different)

 

[Xii-Nyth]

"(unless one already has all the low-level details about Nvidia GPU architectures by stealing them)"
not everything need to be stolen, poaching engineers is somewhat nefarious or gray area but kinda legal, ALL the companies do that, also people can choose who to work for, look at Jim Keller working with everyone and their neighbor.
A little bit less of bias would be welcomed in the articles.

well especially since thats literally what jenson is. a former amd engineer who stole stuff

 

[hotaru251]

Don't some countries, like Germany, have laws explicitly allowing reverse engineering for the purpose of achieving software compatibility in spite of any ToS restrictions?

https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2020/germany/vertraglicher-ausschluss-von-reverse-engineering

quick gloss over seems its situational and neither always yes or no.

 

[Conor Stewart]

Because developers will not do it. Specially huge corporations like 3D software makers.
And because AMD / Intel users have the right to use their cards with these programs.

Why do you feel you have a right to be able to use whatever hardware you want to run a program? Tell me how in any way this is a right? If it's not supported then it's not supported, you can find out if your hardware is supported before you buy the software or you can check which hardware you need to get to use the software you want. It is not a right that all software has to work with all hardware.

It is effectively saying you have a right to run iOS itself or apps made for it on an android phone, PC, laptop, server, etc.

A lot of people throw around the term "right" these days and use it in situations where it absolutely is not a right and likely never will be. Again you do not have the right to be able to run any software on any hardware.

 

[Eximo]

A lot of people throw around the term "right" these days and use it in situations where it absolutely is not a right and likely never will be. Again you do not have the right to be able to run any software on any hardware.

That all comes down to whether you own the hardware. Once I have it in my hands I could presumably write my own code. How is that different than using any code on any hardware?

Software licensing, on the other hand, is a little different.

I didn't sign an agreement with Nvidia when I purchased my GPU. I did when I installed their driver, so they have rights to that software and how it is used. They really shouldn't be able to dictate what software I can use with the hardware. Now if that software uses something that Nvidia has licensed or patented, that is another matter.

Or take Emulators. That is running a piece of software on other hardware. But they don't sue because people use a PC instead of a handheld console, they sue about the unauthorized use of the software.

 

[williamcll]

Don't some countries, like Germany, have laws explicitly allowing reverse engineering for the purpose of achieving software compatibility in spite of any ToS restrictions?

What are they gonna do? Ban Nvidia?

 

[Armbrust11]

This is anti-competitve stuff and the FTC should slap them with a lawsuit. Or failing that this should be ruled unenforceable by the courts.

Otherwise, before you know it there will be a license agreement for things like printers telling us what we can and cannot print, etc.

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

This doesn't surprise me one bit. Tell me something surprising that Nvidia has done recently.

Tell me something consumer-friendly that Nvidia has done recently.

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

I say this as a oneAPI homer (I work at Intel)

Thanks for the work that you're doing, we appreciate it!! (esp on windows! : -)

 

[bit_user]

"(unless one already has all the low-level details about Nvidia GPU architectures by stealing them)"
not everything need to be stolen, poaching engineers is somewhat nefarious or gray area but kinda legal, ALL the companies do that, also people can choose who to work for, look at Jim Keller working with everyone and their neighbor.

You're badly misinformed about these subjects. Spreading that flawed understanding is dangerous, in case someone should happen to act on it.

When you go to work for most companies, the first thing they'll have you do is sign a NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement), stating that you will not improperly share or misappropriate proprietary information or trade secrets belonging to the company. This applies, even if you quit, or are terminated, and go to work for another employer.

In certain jurisdictions, it is illegal for companies to prevent you from working for one of their competitors (this is normally accomplished by having employees sign a "non-compete agreement"). California is one such place that bans non-compete agreements. Even so, if your former employer can establish that you utilized their proprietary information improperly (e.g. at a competitor, leaked it onto the internet, or even potentially at a company in a completely different industry - basically, anywhere without their express consent), they'll sue you for violating the NDA you signed with them.

 

[bit_user]

Why one would use translator that possibly slower, and likely to be buggy, where one can recompile (not reprograms) their code to run natively, and possibly faster, on their target platform ?

First, you talk as if someone can just recompile CUDA code for any GPU they wish, but that's not quite true. Intel and AMD have tools for helping you port CUDA code to their oneAPI and HIP, respectively. It probably takes a bit of time, effort, and expertise. Plus, maybe bugs get introduced in course of that porting effort?

Second, re-targeting CUDA code assumes you actually have the source code. Many commercial products use CUDA and do not provide customers with the full sources they would need, in order to do something like that.

Finally, it's sad to see OpenCL get such a small, passing mention, in the article. We've had an open alternative to CUDA for over 1.5 decades, but compute vendors are only going to support it to the extent that users demand. Right now, Intel is the leading supporter of OpenCL and SYCL.

 

[Pierce2623]

Why do you feel you have a right to be able to use whatever hardware you want to run a program? Tell me how in any way this is a right? If it's not supported then it's not supported, you can find out if your hardware is supported before you buy the software or you can check which hardware you need to get to use the software you want. It is not a right that all software has to work with all hardware.

It is effectively saying you have a right to run iOS itself or apps made for it on an android phone, PC, laptop, server, etc.

A lot of people throw around the term "right" these days and use it in situations where it absolutely is not a right and likely never will be. Again you do not have the right to be able to run any software on any hardware.

When you say “it’s not supported” that’s BS. Why should Nvidia be able to prevent me from running any code my AMD card can run? They’re just mad because they THOUGHT they wrote code that could only benefit their hardware stack and people have figured out how to make other GPUs run CUDA. Do you also support Nvidia totally nerfing performance in certain workloads in non-professional drivers, too?

 

[bit_user]

well especially since thats literally what jenson is. a former amd engineer who stole stuff

I don't know about the "stole stuff" allegation, but he founded Nvidia in 1993. So, it's been more than 30 years since he left AMD. Back then, AMD didn't make graphics chips, so Nvidia was in a very different market than AMD was.

 

[bit_user]

Why do you feel you have a right to be able to use whatever hardware you want to run a program? Tell me how in any way this is a right? If it's not supported then it's not supported,
...
A lot of people throw around the term "right" these days and use it in situations where it absolutely is not a right and likely never will be.

Heh, you complain about liberties being taken with the word "right", but then you do quite a number on the word "supported".

There's a distinction between:

1. The usage models a vendor asserts to work or even provides actual customer service to facilitate.
2. That which is technically possible.
3. What's legally permitted/forbidden by the vendor.

In this case, Nvidia never did "support" running CUDA code on another platform. The issue isn't that they haven't done any work to facilitate it, much less provide customer service to fix any problems you encounter. Rather, the issue is that even when all of the technical work is undertaken by others, Nvidia is using a legal mechanism to forbid its application!

I actually agree with you that (in the USA), we sadly don't have a legal right to use products in whatever way we see fit. However, if we start talking about a moral right to use legally-acquired products in ways that aren't outright destructive to the vendor or other users, then I've got to say I think the notion of liberty holds more sway. I feel like this is in the spirit of "fair use", although I seriously doubt it qualifies. I'm not a lawyer and would never claim the "fair use doctrine" applies, without a much more specific and detailed understanding.