The "2009" license is the correct license. If you try to download a GeForce driver from NVIDIA's website today, that is the license that you must accept before in order to download the driver.

On Windows, it's also the license you must accept during installation time before you can use the driver, even if you did not accept it during your download.

Interestingly, the license inside the Linux package does not include the data centre clause at this point in time.

https://www.geforce.com/drivers/license/geforce

http://www.nvidia.com/content/DriverDownload-March2009/licen...

I went to https://www.geforce.com/drivers and searched for 1060 on Linux.

Then clicked through to https://www.geforce.com/drivers/results/126577. This page has the standard "*By clicking the "Agree & Download" button, you are confirming that you have read and agree to be bound by the License For Customer Use of NVIDIA Software..." That sentence links to the EULA that I linked to.

EDIT: Alright, it matters which site you download the driver from. See the edit to my original comment.

Try downloading drivers for a Titan V - it goes to that very specific 2009 license (complete with the absurd exception for the blockchain). This is very specific and targeted at crushing small system vendors who were selling to scientists across many domains who preferred GeForce over Tesla because of the huge price difference. They have already pursued vendors and they have tried to shut them down. If you don't believe me or you're OK with that behavior, be my guest to continue enabling it.

I just tried for Titan V on Linux through geforce.com and got a EULA without this clause. Downloading through nvidia.com probably gets the no data center EULA.

Windows 64 got me the datacenter-limiting license, Ubuntu 16.04 as well. No idea how you're getting past this:

"2.1.3 Limitations.

    No Modification or Reverse Engineering. Customer may not modify (except as provided in Section 2.1.2), reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.

    No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts.

    No Sublicensing or Distribution. Customer may not sell, rent, sublicense, distribute or transfer the SOFTWARE; or use the SOFTWARE for public performance or broadcast; or provide commercial hosting services with the SOFTWARE.

    No Datacenter Deployment. The SOFTWARE is not licensed for datacenter deployment, except that blockchain processing in a datacenter is permitted.

"

Does it matter when it was? Also not worrying about their stance on things until it gets to the EULA closest to you seems too laissez-faire for me. Rewarding this behavior early on is exactly how you get that clause into your own EULA.

Restricting innovation is an anti-competitive and frankly a dumb move -- who knows how many innovations were discovered in data centers that made their way to the mainstream.

That said, It's a little easier for me to be outraged at this, I'm already running Radeon, so I've already voted with my wallet.

Of course it matters which version we are looking at. It was not initially obvious to me that this clause was added, not removed between 2009 and now. See my edit: Two different driver download pages link to different EULAs.

The second link is "License For Customer Use of NVIDIA GeForce Software", the third link is "License For Customer Use of NVIDIA Software".

The second link is presented and you agreed upon when you try to download the GeForce or Titan driver software from NVIDIA website.

At least, try to read the title.

Oh and the original Japanese version of the article does have a source(has a link to the second link) https://wirelesswire.jp/2017/12/62658/

Frankly, I don't care if the page is titled "FUBAR license XYZ123" since I was asked to agree to the EULA at the third link alone. The third link is presented and you agree when you try to download the GeForce or Titan driver from the GeForce website (geforce.com). I understand that nvidia.com presents the second link, but GeForce.com presents the third link. I said as much in my edit. Please read the entirety of my post before correcting it.

Thanks for pointing out that the original Japanese article did have a link.

The URL is misleading. That isn't the actual EULA from 2009. You can verify that with archive.org. Even if you don't trust archive.org, the reference to "blockchain" would be anachronistic. There were no publicly available bitcoin GPU miners in 2009, and blockchain was typically written as two words.

Isn't it the CuDNN and CUDA licenes which matter?

CUDA requires the kernel driver. All three licenses matter.

Yes of course. Some other coverage indicated it was the Cuda and CuDNN downloads.

My apologies, I misunderstood. The CUDA toolkit license online doesn't appear to have this clause at this time.