Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Where do you see anything about cost?
It is royalty-free, which means there is no charge to use the source code at all. As I mentioned above, it seems nvidia grants the license as soon as you download it so any developer just downloads the source code and can use it free of charge.
So as i said, there are still some libraries that are only provided precompiled. Those compiled libs cannot be reverse-engineered. But all the source code is free to sue by the developer.
Royalty-free, or RF, refers to the right to use copyrighted material or intellectual property without the need to pay royalties or license fees for each use or per volume sold, or some time period of use or sales.
Developers are allowed to modify the code, so Nvidia would have no grounds to revoke the license.
This is just hilarious watching the AMD crowd trying to undermine Nvidia's moveYiu guy should just be proud that AMD led the way and undoubtedly pushed Nvidia to follow!
you should look up more about the definition of royalty-free, that wiki page's definition is wrong.Royalty-free, or RF, refers to the right to use copyrighted material or intellectual property without the need to pay royalties or license fees for each use or per volume sold, or some time period of use or sales.
Nvidia put in a clause that allows them to revoke the license at any time without cause..... it's right there in the wording making your point worthless.
The entire point is with a clause like that no one, absolutely no one spending big money on software development will risk the rug being pulled out from underneath them with a license that can be revoked at any time for any reason. You do not risk millions of dollars in investment in software without full licenses or using open source code that CAN'T have the license revoked.
This means this code will be used by absolutely no big games at all, which means they are left with Nvidia's current paid licenses... which means nothing has changed.
There were two options, cheap enough license for black box gameworks, an unspecified cost source code for gameworks license. They have now added another option, source code for some bits of it.... but with Nvidia saying they can pull this license whenever they want. That clause means some guys playing around with coding will use it, some indie devs might use it, anyone spending bigger money on software development will not risk a license being pulled on them so the new option is ruled out for them, leaving the two original options, of which every dev is magically choosing the non source code paid license, so nothing actually changed.
Edit:- maybe we should also remember what Nvidia's recent history is, patent trolling, trying to intimidate people into paying to license their IP or face big lawsuits. On that basis, a company trolling for royalties, how many big AAA titles are going to risk basing an engine/game and anything from 5-125m on a game just for Nvidia to just before release say, hey, we're pulling your license, pay us 10mil or you can't use gameworks in that game that you've finished with gameworks in it. With recent Nvidia activities with licensing and attempting to extort payments no sensible dev will 'fall' for this bull.
This is the difference, real open source code will involve a license that doesn't say they'll revoke it whenever they want.
Nvidia put in a clause that allows them to revoke the license at any time without cause..... it's right there in the wording
WOW!
This is getting way out of hand...
What if a Dev takes the next step up a with another hardcore 'Hatred' style game, and ramps it right up to MAX carnage spinning it as a title with a religion terrorist kill spree on USA/European soil with massive civilian casualties?
Nvidia couldn't stop the dev from removing GW's code, or have I missed something?
If this theoretical hatred game used the free code no one would hold Nvidia responsible
WOW!
This is getting way out of hand...
52 8. OWNERSHIP. The Licensed Materials including all Intellectual Property Rights therein are and remain the sole and exclusive property of AMD or its licensors
67 13. TERMINATION AND SURVIVAL. AMD may terminate the Agreement immediately upon the breach by Licensee or any sublicensee of any of the terms of the Agreement. Licensee may terminate the Agreement upon written notice to AMD and destruction of the Licensed Materials Licensee accessed hereunder. The termination of this Agreement shall: (i) immediately result in the termination of all rights granted by Licensee to distribute the Licensed Materials and Derivative Works through multiple tiers of distribution under Section 2; and (ii) have no effect on any sublicenses previously granted by Licensee to end users under Section 2(c) and which are compliant with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, which sublicenses shall survive in accordance with their terms. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, Licensee will cease using and destroy or return to AMD all copies of the Confidential Information, including but not limited to the Licensed Materials. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, all provisions survive except for Section 2.
Termination of licence in circumstances breaching said licence is pretty standard tho Bru
For example, its standard that a breach would be to take an open source code and locking it to sell it as your own.
And is the same as the nvidia clause, can we all end this ridiculous nonsense and just accept nvidia has released source code to the public with very standard licensing.
But even CD project red admitted AMD had no access to the code and so it was hard for them to improve there performance as they couldn't optimise for it. Considering the state of pc gaming at the moment a lot of out the gate drivers require optimisation to stay stable especially when updates occur that can alter performance down the line. Sticking your fingers until your ears and wha-wha'ing about the fact Nvidia got some stick for a practice that even when they didn't interested d to harm AMD clearly did block them out of optimising only highlights how naive and childish a lot of the people are on the subject.Likely, it also completely Kill's AMD's PR tactic with GPUOpen (although we can thank AMD for helping make Nvidia do this).
Nvidia was getting completely unwarranted negativity about gamesworks with all sorts of conspiracy nutter proclaiming how they purposely damage performance on AMD or that its terribly optimized etc., all without a shred of evidence (in fact quite the opposite according to developers and actual real world benchmarks).
By doing this Nvidia can completely discredit all these claims. Nvidia were always willing to give the source code away to developers that wanted it, just under careful licensing terms to prevent the developer exploiting the code or passing it on to AMD (either accidentally or on purpose). Seems like nvida are no longer worried about that so will follow AMD.
This is great new, we should finally be able to read these forums without morons going on about "gimpworks" and proclaiming all sorts of conspiracy onse.
Perhaps, then i would say Nvidia need to clarify its wording given that as it currently stands Nvidia have given themselves the right to revoke use permission for reasons of their own choosing.
That renders it unusable without Nvidia's specific permission and there after continuing permission.
And so does the AMD one, yet AMD get a free pass.
Term: This License is effective until terminated. NVIDIA may terminate this Agreement (and with it, all of Developer’s right to the Materials) immediately upon written notice (which may include email) to Developer, with or without cause.
Its this clause which makes it quite different from standard open source licensing.
Basically, Nvidia could contact you at any time with the right to stop you using that code and they don't even need a reason, it could just be they don't like you.
Ok so one could argue that its nvidia's right to pick and chose who they give their code to, yet if they retain that right its not open source.
I can use AMD's code in whatever i do knowing that if i adhere to standard agreements not even AMD can stop me.
If i use Nvidia's code they can stop me at any time for no reason.
Its this clause which makes it quite different from standard open source licensing.
Basically, Nvidia could contact you at any time with the right to stop you using that code and they don't even need a reason, it could just be they don't like you.
Ok so one could argue that its nvidia's right to pick and chose who they give their code to, yet if they retain that right its not open source.
I can use AMD's code in whatever i do knowing that if i adhere to standard agreements not even AMD can stop me.
If i use Nvidia's code they can stop me at any time for no reason.
Nvidia have also stated that the licence in the root is under review and that their intention was to publish with the same licence as their code examples, which is basically a BSD licence link the one included in the subfolders, it could just be that the standard Game works licence has been published by mistake.
Nvidia have also stated that the licence in the root is under review and that their intention was to publish with the same licence as their code examples, which is basically a BSD licence link the one included in the subfolders, it could just be that the standard Game works licence has been published by mistake.