Agreed, however this depends heavily on jurisdiction. E.g. in Germany [0], license agreements presented after purchase are completely void anyway (although defining the moment of purchase for non-physical goods is tricky - not so for a graphics card though). So in Japan, maybe?

[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endbenutzer-Lizenzvertrag

Well, Geforce GPUs are advertised more heavily for graphics than computing. If I were nVidia I'd try to argue that CUDA and other GPU computing libraries are separate products not purchased with this line of GPUs.

If you don't pay for them and need a product is it really a purchase?

The thing with EULAs is that you do not own the product. You are licensed to use the product under the company’s draconian terms. Agree that there needs to be new consumer laws protecting consumers.

A contract used in the old times 1800s to be one to two pages of simple English that both parties negotiated the agreed terms on. Now EULas almost requires a degree in law to understand yet you abide to the terms under civil liability. Further more Eula’s are so long most people blind sign without reading and understanding the terms.

There is also questions whether terms in Eula’s are legal such as limiting free speech about the product. In many countries free speech is a right regulated as basic first amendment laws.

Can you limit free speech?

> In many countries free speech is a right regulated as basic first amendment laws.

That's definitely not true, please realise the whole free speech argument is useless outside the US. Anyway, I think you'll find it hard to get people interested with such an argument, even if it is an interesting way to put it.

But your first point - the argument about owning a product - is easy to understand and much more persuasive. That's why the John Deere DMCA thing got so much press, and also why I'm convinced that the downfall of the EULA will be because somebody tried to limit ownership of a physical product (and not software, which may or may not reap the benefits, but won't be the catalyst).

> can you limit free Speech?

God, this is getting out of hand...

Yes, of course you can. Confidentiality agreements, kn-disparagement clauses in settlement... it happens all the time.

Not to mention that the first amendment limits government censorship. Private parties are, as a first approximation, free to agree to whatever terms they like.

There’s also fraud, obscenity, and defamation laws. All limiting free speech. And, of course, using graphic cards has nothing to do with free speech.

That’s an argument for software licenses. My NVIDIA GPU on the other hand is hardware I own.

But is the hardware even any good without the NVIDIA firmware baked inside?

Or, is adding some firmware/software enough to impose shitty licensing on de facto hardware products, like printer cartridges or Keurig cup things [0]?

If not, where do we draw the line? Luckily, it seems that people hate this kind of thing.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/5/7986327/keurigs-attempt-to...

Good luck using it to its fullest potential without their drivers.

The EULA is for software (=the driver)

"Can you limit free speech?"

Yes, in every country on Earth, for very obvious reasons

Ever signed a non-disclosure agreement?

I'm confused - does the EULA prevent use within one's own data center? Or is it just that a cloud computing service such as AWS or Azure cannot offer them? Because if it's the latter then the article doesn't hold nearly as much weight imo.