Didn’t the author confirm the takedown came from AMD and not NVidia? AMD isn’t responsible for third party software running on their hardware.
Although, IIRC they either sanctioned it or provided some initial funding, which might have put them in a more culpable position. Still, I’m pretty sure the takedown came from AMD, and it doesn’t make sense that they’re doing NVidia’s policing for then.
Yeah, that’d do it. Although, again, it looks like the restriction wasn’t in the NVIDIA licensing wording until recently. IANAL, but you it both parties are required to agree to contract changes; if AMD’s contributions were all pre-wording change, they merely need to dust their hands; it’s OSS. Why are they doing NVIDIA’s dirty work for them?
Didn’t the author confirm the takedown came from AMD and not NVidia? AMD isn’t responsible for third party software running on their hardware.
Although, IIRC they either sanctioned it or provided some initial funding, which might have put them in a more culpable position. Still, I’m pretty sure the takedown came from AMD, and it doesn’t make sense that they’re doing NVidia’s policing for then.
They were paying for its development for about a year and a half.
Yeah, that’d do it. Although, again, it looks like the restriction wasn’t in the NVIDIA licensing wording until recently. IANAL, but you it both parties are required to agree to contract changes; if AMD’s contributions were all pre-wording change, they merely need to dust their hands; it’s OSS. Why are they doing NVIDIA’s dirty work for them?
I’m not convinced.