Legality of TPU Hosting DLSS DLLs

[R-T-B]

Because the population has been conditioned to take whatever rules are crammed down their throat by Corporate America, and have been programmed to support and defend their corporate masters like the good little tools they've become.

Heh, yeah. It couldn't just be that he devs software and thus cares a lot about EULAs...

Nah. Occams razor is for capitalist pigs.

 

[tabascosauz]

Heh, yeah. It couldn't just be that he devs software and thus cares a lot about EULAs...

Nah. Occams razor is for capitalist pigs.

Reporting TPU to Nvidia over this issue isn't "caring a lot about EULAs" and "caring" about w1zzard's legal liabilities, don't ya think? I trust w1zz has a functioning brain of his own, don't need us questioning his decisions. I admit I also began to get a little overconcerned with the grey market Windows keys issue, but I realized I was beginning to come off a overzealous SJW and complete twit for no apparent reason, so I stopped.

I get that people have misconceptions about EULAs from not reading them. I get the point that we shouldn't willingly violate Nvidia's terms. But wouldn't a generally worded email inquiry to Nvidia have sufficed for clarification on their policy, instead of running whining to momma that TPU is doing something illegal and they should do something about it? Really detracts from an otherwise perfectly reasonable perspective to have on the terms. I can't take it seriously after that point, even though I fundamentally don't disagree.

 

[Deleted member 202104]

Heh, yeah. It couldn't just be that he devs software and thus cares a lot about EULAs...

Nah. Occams razor is for capitalist pigs.

Example 1:

...and for all the people giving me shit for emailing nVidia:

You agree to notify NVIDIA in writing of any known or suspected distribution or use of the SDK not in compliance with the requirements of this license, and to enforce the terms of your agreements with respect to the distributed portions of the SDK.

Example 2:

He's legally required to if he uses the library as a dev, so yeah.

Summary:

Because the population has been conditioned to take whatever rules are crammed down their throat by Corporate America, and have been programmed to support and defend their corporate masters like the good little tools they've become.

Thanks for reinforcing my original comment.

 

[eidairaman1]

Sounds like endorsement if you ask me

 

[R-T-B]

Example 1:

Example 2:


Summary:


Thanks for reinforcing my original comment.

I don't agree EULAs are wrong and you aren't going to prove that premise to me, as they can and do work for me too.

So no.

 

[Deleted member 202104]

I don't agree EULAs are wrong and you aren't going to prove that premise to me.

So no.

You can't even see it - it's staring you right in your toothy frog face. Oh well.

Also, by reading this post you've agreed to weekendgeek's EULA. You're required to eat flies everyday. And send me $100. Legally required. Don't make me report you to Kermit.

 

[R-T-B]

Also, by reading this post you've agreed to weekendgeek's EULA.

No u.

 

[Sora]

but the DLL is not the SDK.

the dlls are parts of the SDK, you are not provided uncompiled source code that provides the same behavior.

 

[ZoneDymo]

im going to get fat from all the popcorn im consuming, this better end soon!

 

[Aquinus]

I get that people have misconceptions about EULAs from not reading them. I get the point that we shouldn't willingly violate Nvidia's terms. But wouldn't a generally worded email inquiry to Nvidia have sufficed for clarification on their policy, instead of running whining to momma that TPU is doing something illegal and they should do something about it? Really detracts from an otherwise perfectly reasonable perspective to have on the terms. I can't take it seriously after that point, even though I fundamentally don't disagree.

My email was basically along the lines of, "I suspect that this might be a violation of your license." I wouldn't call it whining to momma and that mentality is along the same lines of "snitches get stitches," because there is no good reason to not inform nVidia of a possible license violation. It's like seeing a possible crime and turning a blind eye to it.

Thanks for reinforcing my original comment.

Uhhh, if I had software covered by some license and someone was in violation of it, I'd want to know. Licensing isn't limited to large corporate entities. It's literally what protects your IP regardless of where it came from or who produced it. In fact I do have licenses on almost all of my software that I've written personally.

 

[qubit]

I'm still getting pointedly ignored. I think that can only mean one reason, besides rudeness: the user has no comeback to my arguments, so avoids replying.

 

[Aquinus]

I'm still getting pointedly ignored. I think that can only mean one reason, besides rudeness: the user has no comeback to my arguments, so avoids replying.

I probably just missed it because this thread is 10 pages long at this point and most points people have been making have been excuses why they think that the license can be ignored.

Finally, put it this way: if megacorps NVIDIA and Microsoft don't care, then why should we? The fact that it's technically a kind of soft piracy is rendered moot and merely a talking point.

Well, the wording of the license and forcing you to accept it in order to download the SDK is part of what makes me think that they do care. It's one thing to ship it with a license, it's another to require accepting it to get access to the SDK. A lot of other things nVidia has released does not require that license confirmation, but the DLSS SDK does. For example, nVidia's GPU drivers only link to the license, but you can download them directly without even viewing it. The DLSS SDK requires you to check a box saying you read and agree to the license and they take down your personal information before making it available. Almost all the places where I see that this is done is for proprietary software with strict licensing terms.

If nVidia doesn't care, then they don't care. However if they didn't care, I'd be a little confused why they'd be requiring people to explicitly accept the license when they could get the same thing elsewhere without doing that. That doesn't add up to me.

 

[Athlon2K15]

Why are you a part of this community? Honestly, you sound like a whiney bitch to me and as a member that been around since the early days you can fuck off.

 

[tabascosauz]

My email was basically along the lines of, "I suspect that this might be a violation of your license." I wouldn't call it whining to momma and that mentality is along the same lines of "snitches get stitches," because there is no good reason to not inform nVidia of a possible license violation. It's like seeing a possible crime and turning a blind eye to it.

Uhhh, if I had software covered by some license and someone was in violation of it, I'd want to know. Licensing isn't limited to large corporate entities. It's literally what protects your IP regardless of where it came from or who produced it. In fact I do have licenses on almost all of my software that I've written personally.

If you suspected a serious crime has occurred, I would agree for reasons of public safety.

But redistributing SDK content is not a crime by any stretch of the imagination ......crimes are dictated by criminal statutes. TPU breaching copyright law is in civil law, and so is breach of contract - unless the former is of especially serious or large-scale nature that the Justice Dept would feel compelled to prosecute, neither of which apply.

Do you still believe you are duty bound as a citizen to report it to Nvidia? Looking at that contractual term, (assuming you hadn't gone and notified them) do you think Nvidia would ever have the motivation to come hunt you down, prove that you possessed knowledge of the potential infringement, and punish you for failing to report it? I highly doubt their legal team has time or willingness for this kind of busybody shit. There's a lot of crap that corporate lawyers write into contracts that don't make sense/aren't seriously intended to be enforced/not even they care about.

It's not that big a deal, take a chill pill dude. We aren't living in the Cultural Revolution.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

can I vote to close this thread, there is a lot of back forth, repeating points, etc.

 

[lexluthermiester]

can I vote to close this thread, there is a lot of back forth, repeating points, etc.

I'll second this. Seems to have devolved.. I think we've had enough NVidia/TPU bashing... The situation between NVidia & TPU is the business of NVidia & TPU and none of ours.

 

[claes]

Settle down Kyle. Do you honestly think this site does not have a legal team? You should have a look around the internet and see what kinds of files are being hosted by third parties, and have been so for well over a decade.

There’s no way TPU has a legal team lol

 

[qubit]

I probably just missed it because this thread is 10 pages long at this point and most points people have been making have been excuses why they think that the license can be ignored.

Well, the wording of the license and forcing you to accept it in order to download the SDK is part of what makes me think that they do care. It's one thing to ship it with a license, it's another to require accepting it to get access to the SDK. A lot of other things nVidia has released does not require that license confirmation, but the DLSS SDK does. For example, nVidia's GPU drivers only link to the license, but you can download them directly without even viewing it. The DLSS SDK requires you to check a box saying you read and agree to the license and they take down your personal information before making it available. Almost all the places where I see that this is done is for proprietary software with strict licensing terms.

If nVidia doesn't care, then they don't care. However if they didn't care, I'd be a little confused why they'd be requiring people to explicitly accept the license when they could get the same thing elsewhere without doing that. That doesn't add up to me.

I can see where you're coming from. Now, I of course, don't have any inside knowledge of NVIDIA's reasoning and motives either, but I can surmise that perhaps it's a box ticking exercise.

And seriously, when it's a megacorp with vast profits having a "problem" like this, I really wouldn't sweat it. It's different if it's a lone developer, or small software house trying to run a business and it was making a material dent in their profits.

I still think NVIDIA would bring their lawyers down on a few with lawsuits to make examples of them if it really bothered them and this "problem" would then go away pretty quickly.

Just my tuppence worth anyway.

 

[ShiBDiB]

Why is this thread still a thing...

If NVIDIA has an issue, they'll contact Wizz.

 

[R-T-B]

There’s no way TPU has a legal team lol

Why have a team? That's expensive to keep on hand 24/7 when you can just hire a lawyer when and if you get bit.

Though, since we do seem to wade into uncharted waters from time to time, a legal consult may not hurt... *shrugs*

 

[piotrj3]

I probably just missed it because this thread is 10 pages long at this point and most points people have been making have been excuses why they think that the license can be ignored.

Well, the wording of the license and forcing you to accept it in order to download the SDK is part of what makes me think that they do care. It's one thing to ship it with a license, it's another to require accepting it to get access to the SDK. A lot of other things nVidia has released does not require that license confirmation, but the DLSS SDK does. For example, nVidia's GPU drivers only link to the license, but you can download them directly without even viewing it. The DLSS SDK requires you to check a box saying you read and agree to the license and they take down your personal information before making it available. Almost all the places where I see that this is done is for proprietary software with strict licensing terms.

If nVidia doesn't care, then they don't care. However if they didn't care, I'd be a little confused why they'd be requiring people to explicitly accept the license when they could get the same thing elsewhere without doing that. That doesn't add up to me.

Counter argument :
What if you install game over GOG or Steam and as you install them, you do not open game and you do not accept any EULAs. At this point you pretty much have a game but you are not forced to oblige to proceed with EULA until you open game. This is same thing as with hardware, until you open product to run and you tick "I agree with license agreements" those are sort of void and this is why dumps of GPU or motherboard BIOSes are around on internet.

This doesn't work when you legitimatly download entire Nvidia's SDK because there you are forced to register and process of downloading itself forces you to apply for it.

 

[claes]

Why have a team? That's expensive to keep on hand 24/7 when you can just hire a lawyer when and if you get bit.

Though, since we do seem to wade into uncharted waters from time to time, a legal consult may not hurt... *shrugs*

No I totally agree with you, having even one lawyer on retainer would cost upwards of $20k, more if you need an IP specialist, before any legal work. I don’t think it’d make any sense at all for a site like this, and surely TPU would hire staff before lawyers if they had money like that.

 

[InVasMani]

4.2.6 separate or use component parts of the Game

Would DLSS constitute as a component part of the game or separate component from it!? The game itself operates without DLSS. Also of importance No Man Sky doesn't own the rights to DLSS. Additionally DLSS isn't being circumvented it's not being reverse engineered or cracked. The GPU itself even acts like a form of dongle protection for DLSS in effect. Honestly this is nuts 10 pages of debate over a subjective minute difference cover band remix upscale effect. I could understand if it were about cat memes and copyrights, but no it's not even that pervasive a argument to be had.

 

[Mussels]

The legal talk is silly cause if Nv had an issue, the download would be removed and thats that.

They dont instantly sue you into oblivion, the first step is always a take down request (which you can refuse if you're confident its legal)

 

[Aquinus]

Counter argument :
What if you install game over GOG or Steam and as you install them, you do not open game and you do not accept any EULAs. At this point you pretty much have a game but you are not forced to oblige to proceed with EULA until you open game. This is same thing as with hardware, until you open product to run and you tick "I agree with license agreements" those are sort of void and this is why dumps of GPU or motherboard BIOSes are around on internet.

This doesn't work when you legitimatly download entire Nvidia's SDK because there you are forced to register and process of downloading itself forces you to apply for it.

The language of the SDK requires the application shipping with it to basically ship with the license or have language that's at least as protective as nVidia's license. We've sort of been over this already.

Would DLSS constitute as a component part of the game or separate component from it!? The game itself operates without DLSS. Also of importance No Man Sky doesn't own the rights to DLSS. Additionally DLSS isn't being circumvented it's not being reverse engineered or cracked. The GPU itself even acts like a form of dongle protection for DLSS in effect. Honestly this is nuts 10 pages of debate over a subjective minute difference cover band remix upscale effect. I could understand if it were about cat memes and copyrights, but no it's not even that pervasive a argument to be had.

The issue is more regarding how the DLLs are being provided, not the actual act of swapping out the DLLs.