Legality of TPU Hosting DLSS DLLs

[Aquinus]

The objection in this thread are examples of people making mountains out of mole-hills and making problems where there are none because of their own ignorance.

Lets keep it civil, shall we? You don't care about software licenses and have a lot of opinions about them already, okay, I get it.

No, i was just pointing out that random, unaffiliated websites have noticed and dont think its a legal issue themselves

If that was the case, why didn't they do it themselves? It's not like serving up files on a CDN is hard. They're probably thanking TPU because they didn't have to stick out their own necks to do it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Lets keep it civil, shall we?

That was me being civil.

You don't care about software licenses

I didn't say that. DON'T put words in my mouth.

and have a lot of opinions about them already

Opinions supported by A LOT of case law.

okay, I get it.

Good. Moving on..

If that was the case, why didn't they do it themselves?

Because tinkering isn't something a company like NVidia generally affords time for it's employees to do.

They're probably thanking TPU because they didn't have to stick out their own necks to do it.

Yeah, that might be true.

 

[Mussels]

because no one thought of it yet, and TPU is as well known website for various repositories of tech related files

How is what we're doing any different to crossflashing an Nvidia BIOS file, also hosted here? (which i did a few minutes ago to raise the power limit on my 3090)

 

[lexluthermiester]

How is what we're doing any different to crossflashing an Nvidia BIOS file, also hosted here?

Another excellent point! Answer: There is no difference.

 

[sepheronx]

so yeah not much different than a game mod then imo. I don't see why nvidia would be mad about it, it helps them out. People won't use it unless it has good ratings and verified by others that it improves performance over other DLSS... so its basically like freelance free work for nvidia devs. lol

I imagine the only scenario nvidia wouldn't like this... if its lower quality too much to get that performance... but again most people won't be using those files unless good reviews/recommended, etc...

I don't know, I don't care either way personally as I only have a gtx 1070.

what happened to your 6800?

 

[Aquinus]

because no one thought of it yet, and TPU is as well known website for various repositories of tech related files

How is what we're doing any different to crossflashing an Nvidia BIOS file, also hosted here? (which i did a few minutes ago to raise the power limit on my 3090)

I don't recall having to explicitly accept a license for downloading things like GPU BIOS files or GPU drivers. How many of those ship with a license that the creator requires you to accept before downloading? Probably none of them.

 

[Dredi]

I once worked in the legal profession and specialized in the area of copyright law. I once argued against microsoft in binding mediation. I won. Any more questions?

A simple ’no’ would have sufficed. Thanks.

anyway, we seem to be both on the same page about the fact that what TPU is doing is technically breaking the SW licence that comes with the DLSS dll’s. The only difference is in whether we think that the licence itself is enforceable or not.

 

[Aquinus]

anyway, we seem to be both on the same page about the fact that what TPU is doing is technically breaking the SW licence that comes with the DLSS dll’s. The only difference is in whether we think that the licence itself is enforceable or not.

The safe thing to do is treat all software licenses as enforceable. As I said, a small application using DLSS would put TPU in compliance with the license. As far as I care it could be a cat picture that gets upscaled, but that would fit the language of the license. Just add something of material value beyond the DLLs themselves, that's it. Well, and include nVidia's license. Then you're all set. Problem solved with DLSS cat picture goodness. The application just has to be the vehicle for distribution, that's all. Use the same application for every version of the DLL. Easy as pie.

 

[lexluthermiester]

A simple ’no’ would have sufficed. Thanks.

You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it.
/s

anyway, we seem to be both on the same page about the fact that what TPU is doing is technically breaking the SW licence that comes with the DLSS dll’s. The only difference is in whether we think that the licence itself is enforceable or not.

I think you need to carefully re-read what was said. Context is important, and you're missing some...

I don't recall having to explicitly accept a license for downloading things like GPU BIOS files or GPU drivers.

And the VBIOS code potions can be found by reading the relevant portions of stated EULA. Again, some of that is negated by fair-use, but it's in there.

The safe thing to do is treat all software licenses as enforceable.

That is a fallacy and has no merit. Better advice would be to encourage people to research and better understand their RIGHTS so that they will know what is and is NOT enforceable.

 

[Aquinus]

And the VBIOS code potions can be found by reading the relevant portions of stated EULA. Again, some of that is negated by fair-use, but it's in there.

That's after you've already downloaded it and are about to start using it. You're not agreeing to the license before getting the software. This is the way you do something when you want something to intentionally be redistributable. Accepting it just to download it puts limits on redistribution. That's a pretty big difference.

That is a fallacy and has no merit. Better advice would be to encourage people to research and better understand their RIGHTS so that they will know what is and is NOT enforceable.

I think most people would prefer to avoid a legal battle, not encourage it, even if you think you can win on what you believe to be a moral high ground. There is a cost to trying to win a battle like that. I don't agree with your assessment.

Think of it this way, it would be cheaper to do this:

As I said, a small application using DLSS would put TPU in compliance with the license. As far as I care it could be a cat picture that gets upscaled, but that would fit the language of the license. Just add something of material value beyond the DLLs themselves, that's it. Well, and include nVidia's license. Then you're all set. Problem solved with DLSS cat picture goodness. The application just has to be the vehicle for distribution, that's all. Use the same application for every version of the DLL. Easy as pie.

 

[lexluthermiester]

That's after you've already downloaded it and are about to start using it. You're not agreeing to the license before getting the software.

Perhaps not, but you can't USE the software until you agree to the EULA. NVidia knows this. Soo...

Accepting it just to download it puts limits on redistribution. That's a pretty big difference.

It's not as big as you think. Nor is it as effective as you think..

I think most people would prefer to avoid a legal battle, not encourage it

Most people are a little spineless too.

I don't agree with your assessment.

Ok, disagree as you see fit. Doesn't make you correct.

 

[Aquinus]

Perhaps not, but you can't USE the software until you agree to the EULA. NVidia knows this. Soo...

No, but you've not agreed to any license and are free to give that installer to anyone as you see fit. That's a pretty huge difference compared to a license that called out how it can be redistributed before even downloading it.

Ok, disagree as you see fit. Doesn't make you correct.

It doesn't make you correct either.

 

[lexluthermiester]

No, but you've not agreed to any license and are free to give that installer to anyone as you see fit. That's a pretty huge difference compared to a license that called out how it can be redistributed before even downloading it.

Not really. The rights holder, in this case NVidia, is still protected from infringment even when the transporters of said protected works are not bound by the governing EULA.

More to the point, distributing a "dll" file, modified or not, does not violate ANY protection afford by law to the creator as that DLL can not function on it's own. It is a part of a software suite that can not be used without fisrt accepting an EULA. Therefore NVidias rights are not violated by making a DLL available for download and as such does NOT injure them in any way, does not infringe upon the protected rights and does not circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, NVidias creator rights.

 

[Aquinus]

Not really. The rights holder, in this case NVidia, is still protected from infringment even when the transporters of said protected works are not bound by the governing EULA.

How are you not bound to a license that you explicitly agreed to? This isn't an implied license where just by using it, the terms are in effect.

 

[lexluthermiester]

How are you not bound to a license that you explicitly agreed to?

Because a transporter didn't agree to anything. The end user does. How do you not understand that VERY simple concept?

This isn't an implied license where just by using it, the terms are in effect.

You're correct, it's not. Why? Because the dll files can not be used by themselves. They are a "Dynamic Link Library", effectively addendum code that is referenced by the executing code which is itself governed by the EULA, which an end user would have had to agree to in order use the subject software.

 

[Aquinus]

Because a transporter didn't agree to anything.

How did they get the DLL then? Assume for a moment that everyone who got the SDK, got it from nVidia and agreed to that license. The wording of the license called out that anyone using the sdk would have licensing at least as strict as nVidia's. If you don't agree to some license, be it the EULA or the terms nVidia puts on their site, wouldn't that then be copyright infringement because you're not merely moving the DLL, you're copying it and making a copy of it every time someone downloads it. I wasn't even going to go there, but that seems like a worse position to be in.

What's wrong with shipping every version of the DLL with some dumb application using it again?

 

[lexluthermiester]

How did they get the DLL then? Assume for a moment that everyone who got the SDK, got it from nVidia and agreed to that license. The wording of the license called out that anyone using the sdk would have licensing at least as strict as nVidia's. If you don't agree to some license, be it the EULA or the terms nVidia puts on their site, wouldn't that then be copyright infringement because you're not merely moving the DLL, you're copying it and making a copy of it every time someone downloads it. I wasn't even going to go there, but that seems like a worse position to be in.

What's wrong with shipping every version of the DLL with some dumb application using it again?

You do realize you answered your own point there, right?

 

[Aquinus]

You do realize you answered your own point there, right?

Which one? There was more than one. I think shipping each version of the DLL with a dumb application using it is the correct way to go here. It doesn't even have to use DLSS itself, it could just spit out the DLL version and maybe some stats about the library. Maybe see if some basic functions work as expected. That's still material value beyond the DLL itself. Seems like a very simple solution that remains in the spirit of the SDK license and we all know TPU likes its tools.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Which one? There was more than one. I think shipping each version of the DLL with a dumb application using it is the correct way to go here. It doesn't even have to use DLSS itself, it could just spit out the DLL version and maybe some stats about the library. Maybe see if some basic functions work as expected. That's still material value beyond the DLL itself. Seems like a very simple solution that remains in the spirit of the SDK license and we all know TPU likes its tools.

Oh good grief. You're arguing in circles. Not sure whether you're doing it deliberately or because you're missing something. Regardless, I'm done with you on this subject.

 

[piotrj3]

How are you not bound to a license that you explicitly agreed to? This isn't an implied license where just by using it, the terms are in effect.

Because transporter or distributor is not bound by it.

Does shop that sells game with DLSS technology is obliged to be correct with EULA? Does Microsoft distributing drivers have to be correct with EULA? Does shop like steam or GOG has to be compliant with EULA? No
Meanwhile END USER (END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT) is already using DLSS compatible license in game he uses. There is no possible usage of .dll being used outside of it. Techpowerup is NOT end user.
EULAs are not enforcable, and any laws existing already are higher value.
Fair use totally covers those cases.
Lawyer would need to prove yes we got damaged by it. They were not so case would be dissmissed.
And your argument you would prefer to be not sued by someone. Well you can be sued for any reason, whatever reason. Case would be dismissed simply.

 

[Dredi]

Because transporter or distributor is not bound by it.

So you cannot limit transportation or distribution with a licence?

 

[freeagent]

I don't understand.. why are you guys pushing this so hard? How does it effect you? What do you have to gain from this? I admit I did not read through the entire thread, even for previous comments.. it honestly seems like a lot of bullshit, and I am surprised to see 12 pages.

 

[Dredi]

I don't understand.. why are you guys pushing this so hard? How does it effect you? What do you have to gain from this? I admit I did not read through the entire thread, even for previous comments.. it honestly seems like a lot of bullshit, and I am surprised to see 12 pages.

Discussing a topic needs to affect me, or have something to gain other than the discussion itself? What? :lol:

 

[freeagent]

Cool! Thanks for being a dick

 

[Dredi]

Cool! Thanks for being a dick

I personally simply find sw licences an interesting topic, and there is nothing wrong with finding them boring either.