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

(github.com)

Show context

eigenvalue ◴[14 Jun 24 14:23 UTC] No.40681204[source]▶

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.

replies(7): >>40681241 #>>40681256 #>>40681604 #>>40683495 #>>40684963 #>>40686175 #>>40688511 #

foresterre ◴[14 Jun 24 14:29 UTC] No.40681256[source]▶

>>40681204 #

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

replies(1): >>40681695 #

1. bionhoward ◴[14 Jun 24 15:19 UTC] No.40681695[source]▶

>>40681256 #

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."

"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?

replies(2): >>40682223 #>>40685233 #

2. philipov ◴[14 Jun 24 16:28 UTC] No.40682223[source]▶

>>40681695 (TP) #

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.

replies(2): >>40682430 #>>40688347 #

3. bionhoward ◴[14 Jun 24 16:51 UTC] No.40682430[source]▶

>>40682223 #

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?

replies(1): >>40682581 #

4. bionhoward ◴[14 Jun 24 17:07 UTC] No.40682581{3}[source]▶

>>40682430 #

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

5. jasongill ◴[14 Jun 24 21:17 UTC] No.40685233[source]▶

>>40681695 (TP) #

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

6. supriyo-biswas ◴[15 Jun 24 08:32 UTC] No.40688347[source]▶

>>40682223 #

“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.

↑