←back to thread

Apple's MLX adding CUDA support

(github.com)
548 points nsagent | 1 comments | 14 Jul 25 21:40 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lukev ◴[15 Jul 25 02:18 UTC] No.44567263[source]▶
So to make sure I understand, this would mean:

1. Programs built against MLX -> Can take advantage of CUDA-enabled chips

but not:

2. CUDA programs -> Can now run on Apple Silicon.

Because the #2 would be a copyright violation (specifically with respect to NVidia's famous moat).

Is this correct?

replies(9): >>44567309 #>>44567350 #>>44567355 #>>44567600 #>>44567699 #>>44568060 #>>44568194 #>>44570427 #>>44577999 #
sitkack ◴[15 Jul 25 05:48 UTC] No.44568194[source]▶
#2 is not a copyright violation. You can reimplement APIs.
replies(2): >>44568364 #>>44568387 #
adastra22 ◴[15 Jul 25 06:25 UTC] No.44568387[source]▶
CUDA is not an API, it is a set of libraries written by NVIDIA. You'd have to reimplement those libraries, and for people to care at all you'd have to reimplement the optimizations in those libraries. That does get into various IP issues.
replies(3): >>44568506 #>>44568575 #>>44570953 #
Imustaskforhelp ◴[15 Jul 25 06:43 UTC] No.44568506[source]▶
Even if its not as optimized, it would still be nice to see a CUDA alternative really

Also I do wonder what the difference b/w a API and a set of libraries are, couldn't an API be exposed from that set of libraries which could be used? Its a little confusing I guess

replies(1): >>44568626 #
adastra22 ◴[15 Jul 25 06:57 UTC] No.44568626{3}[source]▶
> couldn't an API be exposed from that set of libraries which could be used

And now you've entered that copyright violation territory.

replies(1): >>44568978 #
Someone ◴[15 Jul 25 07:59 UTC] No.44568978{4}[source]▶
IP infringement, not copyright violation.

A clean room reimplementation of cuda would avoid any copyright claims, but would not necessary avoid patents infringement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design:

“Clean-room design is useful as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean-room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions.”

replies(2): >>44573410 #>>44578961 #
1. adastra22 ◴[16 Jul 25 05:25 UTC] No.44578961{5}[source]▶
I didn't read the GP post as talking about clean-room reimplementation, but rather just serving the same NVIDIA-written libraries on top of AMD hardware.