The Streamline is a Lie

Status
Not open for further replies.
FrgMstr said:
Well, actually if you read the open source licenses, they cannot just incorporate that in their proprietary tools. It has to be agreed upon.
Click to expand...

And you're insinuating they're breaking liscence or got concession? Because the former is one thing and could be brought to the attention of those who could actually do something about it, the latter is simply as I said a consequence of what your competitors can do and use against you when you choose an open source model to follow. This is business, you'd be dumb not to exploit your competitor's flaws. None of these companies are a charity nor a consumer advocacy group. Any talk of 'we love you, this is for you' is marketing, plain and simple. You apparently forgot that with 'oH sO eViL nViDiA'.
 
staknhalo said:
And if you don't want your competitors integrating your shit into their software (for what the licencing allows), then don't make your shit open source ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Math doesn't seem too hard on that one, but I dunno.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I understand here, what does being integrated by who in which software ?

FrgMstr said:
Well, actually if you read the open source licenses, they cannot just incorporate that in their proprietary tools. It has to be agreed upon.
Click to expand...
What proprietay tools are we talking about ?

Streamline ?
https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/Streamline

Does doing work with MIT licensing (https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/Streamline/blob/main/license.txt) would break AMD opensource licensing.

I feel stupid, I really do not follow that part of the conversation.
 
FrgMstr said:
What I am saying is that Streamline is little more than a slide that is half baked.
Click to expand...

You also say they are doing it from a place of fear, where it might simply be confidently and logically using your own competitors open source business model against them to lock them out of the conversation completely, as you also later pointed out.

Edit: And again, that's not 'eViL'. You wanna call 'em 'sharks', 'assholes', whatever, go for it. But it's not 'eViL'.
 
staknhalo said:
You also say they are doing it from a place of fear, where it might simply be confidently and logically using your own competitors open source business model against them to lock them out of the conversation completely, as you also later pointed out.
Click to expand...
I do not understand here, how sharing the same API in game engine for your motion vector locking anyone out (they have to compete with Unreal and other major engine of the major studio own made solution that is really, really good here has well, not just between them), how AMD open source model change something about that ?

For me the goals seem much more, having every game engine use in the gameloop/render stack an NVIDIA part and once it is there that make it really easy to not just interface with DLSS, but everything else they will make in the future using the giant not so used part of their GPUs family that is AI, AI characther decisions like pathfinding, some advanced physics, speciallised hairwork, skindeformation, name it, it will be really easy for developer to use them in the already present streamline with maybe in some case everything needed to feed it already in place.

Then you build and build your moat of exclusive (or much better) game feature and use buying logo in the game start strategy to push it if you need to at the beginning.
 
LukeTbk said:
I do not understand here, how sharing the same API in game engine for your motion vector locking anyone out (they have to compete with Unreal and other major engine of the major studio own made solution that is really, really good here has well, not just between them), how AMD open source model change something about that ?

For me the goals seem much more, having every game engine use in the gameloop/render stack an NVIDIA part and once it is there that make it really easy to not just interface with DLSS, but everything else they will make in the future using the giant not so used part of their GPUs family that is AI, AI characther decisions like pathfinding, some advanced physics, speciallised hairwork, skindeformation, name it, it will be really easy for developer to use them in the already present streamline with maybe in some case everything needed to feed it already in place.

Then you build and build your moat of exclusive (or much better) game feature and use buying logo in the game start strategy to push it if you need to at the beginning.
Click to expand...

Kyle was referring to devs going to AMD to work with them during development vs Nvidia just handing them everything even AMD would offer (that is open source) in Nvidia's software stack, and saying "if you got any problems during development, all you have to do is come to us, you don't even have to go to them for anything" - thus further tightening (or stranglehold, if you want to put it that way) Nvidia and developer relations.

That's what I understood, correct me if I'm wrong.
 
staknhalo said:
Kyle was referring to devs going to AMD to work with them during development vs Nvidia just handing them everything even AMD would offer (that is open source) in Nvidia's software stack, and saying "if you got any problems during development, all you have to do is come to us, you don't even have to go to them for anything" - thus further tightening (or stranglehold, if you want to put it that way) Nvidia and developer relations.

That's what I understood, correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Nvidia makes it very very easy to use and implement their tech, it drastically shortens development time and costs. It's something AMD really needs to step up on, they make a great set of hardware but their customer service is still on the lacking side.
 
Plus there's the whole AMD kinda relies on Open Source because of their own inability and lack of resources (and obviously after all this time apparent lack of will/dedication IMO) for SW..... but let's not go there amirite guise?!

Have AMD GPU driver issues even been largly resolved at this point? Genuinely asking.
 
LukeTbk said:
Does doing work with MIT licensing (https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/Streamline/blob/main/license.txt) would break AMD opensource licensing.

I feel stupid, I really do not follow that part of the conversation.
Click to expand...
Don't feel stupid, because I had to reach out to some folks about this as well. Yes it is open source, but it was explained to me that a competitor cannot just integrate those technologies into their proprietary toolset, which in this case is GameWorks. Streamline would be incorporated into GameWorks is my understanding. It is my understanding that due to how the licensing is structured, it would have be legally agreed to for NV to pop XeSS, FSR, etc. into Streamline. Maybe I am wrong, but I talked to some people that work with these technologies every day and they seemed very clear on it.
 
staknhalo said:
Have AMD GPU driver issues even been largly resolved at this point? Genuinely asking.
Click to expand...
I have been running a 6900XT in my personal box since release with zero issues. The driver interface and control panel makes NVIDIA's ancient tech look horrible comparatively IMO. Intel's is looking pretty freaking awesome as well.
 
FrgMstr said:
Don't feel stupid, because I had to reach out to some folks about this as well. Yes it is open source, but it was explained to me that a competitor cannot just integrate those technologies into their proprietary toolset, which in this case is GameWorks. Streamline would be incorporated into GameWorks is my understanding. It is my understanding that due to how the licensing is structured, it would have be legally agreed to for NV to pop XeSS, FSR, etc. into Streamline. Maybe I am wrong, but I talked to some people that work with these technologies every day and they seemed very clear on it.
Click to expand...

What license(s) is it/they under? Something like 'consensus needed to use' would need to be in the terms right?

Edit:

GPUOpen-Effects/FidelityFX-FSR is licensed under the

MIT License​

A short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring preservation of copyright and license notices. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code.

https://github.com/GPUOpen-Effects/FidelityFX-FSR/blob/master/license.txt

I'm not seeing how Nvidia would need permission.

It's allowed for commercial use and distribution.
 
Last edited:
staknhalo said:
What license(s) is it/they under? Something like 'consensus needed to use' would need to be in the terms right?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what we are talking about exactly, if people are talking about streamline specifically it is under one of the most open licensing that currently exist:

in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in al
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

The game developper get the code on github, do absolutely what they want with it, need to the legal cp notice appear somewhere (I do it in the installing process)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

FSR 2.0 and XESS if they want can use streamline way to define motion vector for their own use and AMD (or as they call them vendor #3)/Intel can do their own plugin.

The advantage for Nvidia are obvious in 2 ways if that ever get use by major engine all around, advantage for developers has well.

FrgMstr said:
, but it was explained to me that a competitor cannot just integrate those technologies into their proprietary toolset,
Click to expand...
Do you mean if you want to make your own real time denoisers or dlss that replace Nvidia plugins in that diagram instead of your own plugin you can't ?

hL5vqcVYYCwiFpS7eQrCGD-970-80.jpg
 
LukeTbk said:
I am not sure what we are talking about exactly, if people are talking about streamline specifically it is under one of the most open licensing that currently exist:
Click to expand...

AMD's tech, like FSR, which is fine for Nvidia to use in their own software stack (Streamline) they then give to game developers, without permission needed (for Nvidia to do) apparently from what I posted/understood in my other post above.
 
staknhalo said:
AMD's tech, like FSR, which is fine for Nvidia to use in their own software stack (Streamline) they then give to game developers, without permission needed (for Nvidia to do) apparently from what I posted/understood in my other post above.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why Nvidia would do that or why would AMD mind them doing that, if NVIDIA make FSR 2.0 work for them, that really good for AMD no ?

FSR 2.0 on a game that support DLSS is a 3 days work according to AMD, on a DLSS game that support streamline it will be almost auto/out of the box with an AMD pluggin I would imagine.

One fear of NVIDIA here I would imagine, is people starting to use only AMD FSR 2.0/intel solution and not theirs.
 
LukeTbk said:
I am not sure why Nvidia would do that or why would AMD mind them doing that, if NVIDIA make FSR 2.0 work for them, that really good for AMD no ?
Click to expand...
because of the whole:
staknhalo said:
Kyle was referring to devs going to AMD to work with them during development vs Nvidia just handing them everything even AMD would offer (that is open source) in Nvidia's software stack, and saying "if you got any problems during development, all you have to do is come to us, you don't even have to go to them for anything" - thus further tightening (or stranglehold, if you want to put it that way) Nvidia and developer relations.
Click to expand...

He also said it was motivated by Nvidia apparently being fearful in the current software space somehow, whereas I'm arguing this seems more like Nvidia smartly boxing them out and 'hanging your competition with their own rope that they themselves gave you'.
 
I feel that the strategy is a bit the opposite of boxing them out (how/why Intel would react like that to being boxed out ?) but I am not fully sure what it meant by that.

The best thing that could happen here to Nvidia is AMD/Intel starting to do streamline pluggin (ie boxing them in) and for streamline to start being used in the Unreal/Frosbite/PhyreEngine/Snowdrop of the world, if you look at the DLSS/Denoiser/image scaling box, it can make really easy for Nvidia to add new box in there and can make more easier to spread the use of the future Physic X/Hairwork popular (the more part of their video card is idling during the game and could be use for something, the more it is needed), I can see many AI stuff being done on the gpu instead of the cpu one day for example.

Has long has they keep the lead on the power of the gpu not used for the tradionnel gpu work, the more advantage they have for those extra to become popular, even if they do not box people out of them and let others do their own hairworks plugin using the same entry that is easily used by devs if they want, specially if they stay the leader, define those tools and people are chasing a generation behind on all those features.
 
LukeTbk said:
I feel that the strategy is a bit the opposite of boxing them out (how/why Intel would react like that to being boxed out ?) but I am not fully sure what it meant by that.

The best thing that could happen here to Nvidia is AMD/Intel starting to do streamline pluggin (ie boxing them in) and for streamline to start being used in the Unreal/Frosbite/PhyreEngine/Snowdrop of the world, if you look at the DLSS/Denoiser/image scaling box, it can make really easy for Nvidia to add new box in there and can make more easier to spread the use of the future Physic X/Hairwork popular (the more part of their video card is idling during the game and could be use for something, the more it is needed), I can see many AI stuff being done on the gpu instead of the cpu one day for example.

Has long has they keep the lead on the power of the gpu not used for the tradionnel gpu work, the more advantage they have for those extra to become popular, even if they do not box people out of them and let others do their own hairworks plugin using the same entry that is easily used by devs if they want, specially if they stay the leader, define those tools and people are chasing a generation behind on all those features.
Click to expand...

Intel and Nvidia have a little love fest going on ATM with Intel talking about making Fabs in the US and fabing for Nvidia, so there's a whole bunch of press and ventures (here is part your answer as to why Intel would get on board) going on promoting that.

Intel also is entering the discrete GPU market, and wants a presence

They also don't have an established and proven SW solution for that area yet because they're not even in the game yet

Look at the SW field in that area nowadays (in terms of development) - Nvidia dominates. So you want people to use your stuff (as you point out), partnering with the dominant market presence isn't a bad idea

People use Nvidia's stuff because they make good competent tools people can, do and like to use, that's what Intel realises and is trying to leverage that to gain adoption to some degree.

Or they're deciding to partner up with eViL.
 
staknhalo said:
Intel and Nvidia have a little love fest going on ATM with Intel talking about making Fabs in the US and fabing for Nvidia, so there's a whole bunch of press and ventures (here is part your answer as to why Intel would get on board) going on promoting that.

Intel also is entering the discrete GPU market, and wants a presence

They also don't have an established and proven SW solution for that area yet because they're not even in the game yet

Look at the SW field in that area nowadays (in terms of development) - Nvidia dominates. So you want people to use your stuff (as you point out), partnering with the dominant market presence isn't a bad idea

People use Nvidia's stuff because they make good competent tools people can, do and like to use, that's what Intel realises and is trying to leverage that to gain adoption to some degree.

Or they're deciding to partner up with eViL.
Click to expand...
I think this is the Blofeld / Goldfinger tag team match the world has been fearing since the 70s.
But yeah Nvidia has some 80% of the desktop discrete market, if you are going to be supporting somebody else's framework and you have a choice between them do you go with your active competitor who owns 20% of that market or somebody who you just signed a multi-billion dollar agreement with who owns the remaining 80% of the market.

Really Intel being willing to partner up with Nvidia for this signifies two things, 1 they are going at this seriously, B they both want to stick it to AMD, and iii if their cards are competitive then can split the market at AMD's expense depending on how well Intel's GPU's perform NVidia can focus on the upper end of the market and Intel can mop up the lower end and compete with AMD on their bread and butter segments. Intel's internal costs for fabbing are lower than AMD's so it gives a definitive cost advantage.
 
And like I said, AMD relied on the 'free outsourced labor costs' of open source model to try and pick up slack for their own continuous failings there (whether lack of funds or ineptitude or both).

They didn't do it because they love you.

Now that it's being used against them, that's somehow not another example of bad strategic choices by AMD as a company, no. That too, is Nvidia's fault somehow ☝️
 
FrgMstr said:
Well, actually if you read the open source licenses, they cannot just incorporate that in their proprietary tools. It has to be agreed upon.
Click to expand...

Usually open source projects are released under a specific license. There are many different versions of open source licenses, the most common probably being GNU-GPL or BSD licenses, but in general they require you to re-release any derivative work under the same license.

That's when the lawyers get involved. OSX/MacOS is technically based on FreeBSD, but they separated the GUI from the operating system it was based on, in order to make the argument that only their modified FreeBSD base (Darwin) had to be re-released under the BSD license, and they could keep the UI running on top of it closed source and proprietary.

It's low-level scummy, but still scummy. It continues, because what open source project has the money to take on the likes of Apple in court? Deepest pockets still usually win in corporate legal fights, and Apple is sitting on over $200B in cash or cash-like liquid assets...
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Usually open source projects are released under a specific license. There are many different versions of open source licenses, the most common probably being GNU or BSD licenses, but in general they require you to re-release any derivative work under the same license.

That's when the lawyers get involved. OSX/MacOS is technically based on FreeBSD, but they separated the GUI from the operating system it was based on, in order to make the argument that only their modified FreeBSD base (Darwin) had to be re-released under the BSD license, and they could keep the UI running on top of it closed source and proprietary.

It's low-level scummy, but still scummy. It continues, because what open source project has the money to take on the likes of Apple in court? Deepest pockets still usually win in corporate legal fights, and Apple is sitting on over $200B in cash or cash-like liquid assets...
Click to expand...

Or, it's legal and some people just don't like that it is on emotional arguments alone so they deem it scummy (and like I said - companies like Nvidia, you wanna call them a bunch of scummy assholes, even if I don't agree - I see why you could think that from their own methods and reputation - but those methods are proven to be the successful ones in the end). Plenty of interested people and groups would take gladly front the money to 'take a shot at the king' in a court of law. There are entire copyright troll industries based on doing what you say no one would/could bother to do. Samsung would/would have gladly funded that case if there were a case. Don't make your shit open sourced if you don't want it used against you. The open source model is not without it's own flaws.
 
Last edited:
staknhalo said:
Or, it's legal and some people just don't like that it is on emotional arguments alone so they deem it scummy (and like I said - companies like Nvidia, you wanna call them a bunch of scummy assholes, even if I don't agree - I see why you could think that from their own methods and reputation - but those methods are proven to be the successful ones in the end). Plenty of interested people and groups would take gladly front the money to 'take a shot at the king' in a court of law. There are entire copyright troll industries based on doing what you say no one would/could bother to do. Samsung would/would have gladly funded that case if there were a case. Don't make your shit open sourced if you don't want it used against you. The open source model is not without it's own flaws.
Click to expand...
Your posts in this thread seem more emotionally driven than any others except perhaps a couple by the one person that actually has a good reason for their feelings about the company. The article claims it's open source but gives no specifics about what type of license or what parts are covered by it while making it sound like it's very much controlled by Nvidia, this definitely leaves a lot open to interpretation and their track record suggests it's probably not what most of us think of as open source.

The article does actually make an interesting point when it mentions that it might be an attempt to prevent something else from replacing DLSS, they're packaging it with other stuff so if a dev is going to implement one feature they might as well do the others too making it harder to justify using an alternative to DLSS even if it's superior. There's no guarantee that alternatives would work as well or be as easy to implement with this framework and even if they do they'd likely just include both making it something Nvidia could market as an exclusive feature(which they'd probably do even if it wasn't any better and just claim that it is).
 
Red Falcon said:
NVIDIA is very much doing the process listed on the right of the picture.
Click to expand...
Not sure how much the government regulation is involved in Nvidia success here and corporatism is not (really not) necessarily company manipulation of government, but a society that decide to operate in a planned concern with corporation in a sector like facism regim did or extremelly strong labour union movement / corporation do (dairy industry in Canada would be an example of corporatism I think)

corporatism​


: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

I feel there one side with capitalist, the other side capitalist with corrupted officials.

Is there any link between Nvidia streamline and all the conversation going on (how does streamline help in any way or change anything in the ability for any company to read open code source and use it in their own code if they want ? How much would they be doing it considering how much advanced they are in the upscaling domain ?)
 
Ebernanut said:
Your posts in this thread seem more emotionally driven than any others except perhaps a couple by the one person that actually has a good reason for their feelings about the company. The article claims it's open source but gives no specifics about what type of license or what parts are covered by it while making it sound like it's very much controlled by Nvidia, this definitely leaves a lot open to interpretation and their track record suggests it's probably not what most of us think of as open source.

The article does actually make an interesting point when it mentions that it might be an attempt to prevent something else from replacing DLSS, they're packaging it with other stuff so if a dev is going to implement one feature they might as well do the others too making it harder to justify using an alternative to DLSS even if it's superior. There's no guarantee that alternatives would work as well or be as easy to implement with this framework and even if they do they'd likely just include both making it something Nvidia could market as an exclusive feature(which they'd probably do even if it wasn't any better and just claim that it is).
Click to expand...

If they're open source you can review the usage licence as seen in the links provided in this thread. Sounds like you're emotionally invested as well apparently.
 
Ebernanut said:
The article does actually make an interesting point when it mentions that it might be an attempt to prevent something else from replacing DLSS, they're packaging it with other stuff so if a dev is going to implement one feature they might as well do the others too making it harder to justify using an alternative to DLSS even if it's superior. There's no guarantee that alternatives would work as well or be as easy to implement with this framework and even if they do they'd likely just include both making it something Nvidia could market as an exclusive feature(which they'd probably do even if it wasn't any better and just claim that it is).
Click to expand...
From my understanding , the way it is done it is extremelly easy out of the box to propose all alternative that speak the same motion vector (it is to make it easier), with this more than before it would be stranger for a DLSS title to not support FSR 2.0.

Imagine you do not have streamline, that you need to code a significant different way to speak the information to dlss, FSR 2.0 or intel solution, now you have to either pick or put a lot more work. In exchange to have an footing in more games and have less change to be left out of the upscaling solution they are making sure that it will be super easy for Intel/Amd (if they want) to never be left out of DLSS title, if the game developper just want to have those option available (i.e. if they did not accept in exchange of NVIDIA money not to support them).

If your game has a console entry, you know in advance you need a upscaling solution that will not be DLSS anyway.
 
LukeTbk said:
From my understanding , the way it is done it is extremelly easy out of the box to propose all alternative that speak the same motion vector (it is to make it easier), with this more than before it would be stranger for a DLSS title to not support FSR 2.0.

Imagine you do not have streamline, that you need to code a significant different way to speak the information to dlss, FSR 2.0 or intel solution, now you have to either pick or put a lot more work. In exchange to have an footing in more games and have less change to be left out of the upscaling solution they are making sure that it will be super easy for Intel/Amd (if they want) to never be left out of DLSS title, if the game developper just want to have those option available (i.e. if they did not accept in exchange of NVIDIA money not to support them).

If your game has a console entry, you know in advance you need a upscaling solution that will not be DLSS anyway.
Click to expand...
That assumes that it does an equally good job of implementing the different forms and even if it does and it means they include both instead of just the one that works on all hardware then they still get to advertise their exclusive feature. There's also no reason they can't make them easier to implement without this framework which I believe has been a stated goal of both DLSS and FSR, I guess the real question is if this framework actually makes anything better for everyone or if it just creates further momentum for Nvidia exclusive features.

This hardly seems that bad but it does seem like they're trying to spin it as a good thing for everyone when it's most likely mainly designed to be self-serving in some fashion. This is of course assuming it is or at least will be more than a half baked slide as someone suggested it is.
 
ChadD said:
If Intel is really giving that much power to Nvidia they are as stupid as we all believe them to be.
Click to expand...
I think Intel is just trying to gain any credence as a GPU manufacturer. They're joining the cool kids in hopes to gain their power. Intel has an uphill battle to get customers to buy their GPU's over Nvidia's or AMD's. Which is what I'd normally say if there wasn't a GPU shortage.
toast0 said:
Apple gets a lot of crap directed at it, most of it deserved, but given that Vulkan discussions started in July 2014 after Metal released in June 2014, it's hard to blame Apple for not choosing Vulkan instead of developing Metal.
Click to expand...
Ok so what? It's 2022 is anyone using Metal? Physx was first but is anyone using it now? You know who beat Apple to the punch? AMD with their Mantle API. The API that Vulkan is based on. AMD who supplied them GPU's for decades. Apple should have given up on the Metal API the moment Vulkan was released. The only differences from Nvidia's Streamlined and Apple's Metal API is that Intel is on board with it, and most likely developers will code for Nvidia, at least for a few years.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I wasn't familiar with Streamline prior to this article I'll have to go read up on it, but I am always suspicious of Nvidia in this regard.

They have a LONG history of trying to use proprietary solutions to lock out or lock in both users and developers in ways that really ought to be illegal if you ask me.

Here developer, have our free Hairworks/Gameworks tool and use it to develop your game. Oh and when you do, anyone running it on a GPU other than ours either won't work, or will have paralyzing performance issues, forcing them to disable these features and make the title look like crap, meaning the only way to get the best experience will be for them to buy our hardware.

Same with some hardware solutions. Take G-Sync as an example. Sure VRR has been built into the VESA standard forever, but they developed a way to make it proprietary (charging screen vendors licensing fees) and also locking it to only their GPU's. They know that people upgrade GPU's on average much more often than they do monitors, so by selling them a monitor that only works with their GPU's the user is locked in to buying Nvidia GPU's for 5+ years on average.

For many years I bought nothing but Nvidia GPU's but I always hated doing it, knowing the sleazy ways in which they operate.

This is why I am so overjoyed at Nvidia's failure to acquire ARM. I can't think of a worse more manipulative company to own such a strategically important technology for the modern world.
Click to expand...
If Jensen Huang keeps that crap up he'll wind up in prison.
 
DukenukemX said:
Physx was first but is anyone using it now?
Click to expand...
Yes it is the default physics engine for Unreal 4 and Unity 3D. It’s also open source not sure under which license but source and binaries are available from their GitHub.
https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/PhysX
DukenukemX said:
Ok so what? It's 2022 is anyone using Metal?
Click to expand...
Anything running on an iOS device is using it, so are thousands of desktop applications. MoltenVK was a stopgap until development libraries caught up for non XCode environments, they have now.
 
Lakados said:
Yes it is the default physics engine for Unreal 4 and Unity 3D. It’s also open source not sure under which license but source and binaries are available from their GitHub.
https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/PhysX

Anything running on an iOS device is using it, so are thousands of desktop applications. MoltenVK was a stopgap until development libraries caught up for non XCode environments, they have now.
Click to expand...

NVIDIA PhysX SDK 4.1​

Copyright (c) 2021 NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

  • Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  • Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
  • Neither the name of NVIDIA CORPORATION nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/PhysX/blob/4.1/LICENSE.md
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
gigaxtreme1 said:
If Jensen Huang keeps that crap up he'll wind up in prison.
Click to expand...

I think that is unlikely, but I wouldn't be surprised if at some point Nvidia gets sued for anti-competitive practices, maybe even by the DOJ like what happened with Microsoft back in tbe day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
Zarathustra[H] said:
I think that is unlikely, but I wouldn't be surprised if at some point Nvidia gets sued for anti-competitive practices, maybe even by the DOJ like what happened with Microsoft back in tbe day.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Some like to be the cool kids who hate on NV in obscure forums or on the cesspool of reddit, but they are loved by investors and almost all of their customers. They make big money, are well run and provide a great product to AI and compute customers. They also own almost all of the PC game market. SMH.
 
DooKey said:
They also own almost all of the PC game market. SMH.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that has a list of argument on why they would not get sued for anti-competitive pratice (same goes for being loved by investor ?)
 
DooKey said:
I doubt it. Some like to be the cool kids who hate on NV in obscure forums or on the cesspool of reddit, but they are loved by investors and almost all of their customers. They make big money, are well run and provide a great product to AI and compute customers. They also own almost all of the PC game market. SMH.
Click to expand...

Some of the things you note here are part of the problem. If you use your leadership position to try to exclude competitors from the market, not by just making a better product, but by manipulation trying to prevent them from being able to compete, that could easily be viewed as anti-competitive business practices.

Many may have said (and did say) the same things about Microsoft in in 2001.
 
Last edited:
Lakados said:
They haven’t done anything anti-competitive though, quite the opposite they are aggressively competitive and very innovative.
Click to expand...
Maybe yes, but that seem completely different from being loved by customer, investor and often the opposite of completely dominating a field, at least quite different to it.
 
Lakados said:
They haven’t done anything anti-competitive though, quite the opposite they are aggressively competitive and very innovative.
Click to expand...

Have you already forgotten the Geforce Partner Program (GPP)? I couldn't link the OG HardOCP article because I couldn't find it.

Bennett summarizes the opinions as follows:
  • The terms of the GPP agreement are potentially illegal
  • The GPP will hurt consumer choices
  • The GPP will hurt a partner's ability to do business with other companies like AMD and Intel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top