Nvidia Warp: A Python framework for high performance GPU simulation and graphics

I really like how nvidia started doing more normal open source and not locking stuff behind a login to their website. It makes it so much easier now that you can just pip install all the cuda stuff for torch and other libraries without authenticating and downloading from websites and other nonsense. I guess they realized that it was dramatically reducing the engagement with their work. If it’s open source anyway then you should make it as accessible as possible.

It being on GitHub doesn't mean it's open-source.

https://github.com/NVIDIA/warp?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme

Looks more "source available" to me.

I would argue that this isn't "normal open source", though it is indeed not locked behind a login on their website. The license (1) is feels very much proprietary, even if the source code is available.

(1) https://github.com/NVIDIA/warp/blob/main/LICENSE.md

This isn’t open source. It s the equivalent of headers being available to a dylib, just that they happen to be a python API.

Most of the magic is behind closed source components, and it’s posted with a fairly restrictive license.

Agreed, especially given this

"2.7 You may not use the Software for the purpose of developing competing products or technologies or assist a third party in such activities."

vs

"California’s public policy provides that every contract that restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is, to that extent, void, except under limited statutory exceptions."

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

(Owner/Partner who sold business, may voluntarily agree to a noncompete, (which is now federally https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/noncompete-ru... banned) is the only exception I found).

I'm not a lawyer. Any lawyers around? Could the 2nd provision invalidate the 1st, or not?

That's what open-source means. Source code is open for reading. It has nothing to do with Licensing. You can have any type of license on top of that based on your business needs

That may be your definition, but that's not everyone's definition. Wikipedia, for example, says:

> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

No. That's not how it works. It's great that they're making source available but if I can't modify and distribute it, it's not open.

You're free to engage in a lawful profession, just not using that Software for it. "to that extent" is not there merely for show.

Hey, that's a real argument, and it makes sense. Thank you for helping to clarify this topic.

Question: why would NVIDIA, makers of general intelligence, which seems to compete with everyone, publish code for software nobody can use without breaking NVIDIA rules? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if they just kept that code private?

ah, just found this license here for another NVIDIA product released today https://developer.download.nvidia.com/licenses/nvidia-open-m... this is way better

And people say nvida doesn't have a moat.

Accessible, as long as you purchase their very contested hardware.

No. The Open Source Initiative maintains the definition, which is accepted internationally by multiple government agencies.

https://opensource.org/osd

https://opensource.org/authority

In a similar fashion, you'll see that JAX has frontend code being open-sourced, while device-related code is distributed as binaries. For example, if you're on Google's TPU, you'll see libtpu.so, and on macOS, you'll see pjrt_plugin_metal_1.x.dylib.

The main optimizations (scheduler, vectorizer, etc.) are hidden behind these shared libraries. If open-sourced, they might reveal hints about proprietary algorithms and provide clues to various hardware components, which could potentially be exploited.

FYI, the FTC noncompete rule does not go into effect until September, and it specifically carves out an exception to the rule for existing noncompetes for senior executives

it's not open source and can only be used with nvidia gpus (by license).

donno. it's clear they have no effective moat. they still try hard, making themselves quite customer-hostile.

“To that extent” in this context means that the remainder of the contract stays valid. The interpretation you state is not only incorrect, it would be toothless to introduce it because people could simply work around it by adding that clause and arguing that it constitutes a sufficient exception under the law.

As for why the “to the extent” phrasing exists, consider an example: an employment contract consists of two clauses, A: that prevents the employee from disclosing confidential customer data to third parties, and B: a non-compete clause (which does come under the same provision mentioned by grandparent). If the employer ever sues an employee for violation of A, they shouldn’t be allowed to argue that they aren’t subject to it because of clause B.

there has been a rise of "open"-access and freeware software/services in this space. see hugging face and certain models tied to accounts that accept some eula before downloading model weights, or weird wrapper code by ai library creators which makes it harder to run offline (ultralytics library comes to mind for instance).

i like the value they bring, but the trend is against the existing paradigm of how python ecosystem used to be.

CUDA is a moat. What's ineffective about it?