←back to thread

Ollama violating llama.cpp license for over a year

(github.com)
202 points Jabrov | 3 comments | 16 May 25 10:36 UTC | HN request time: 2.171s | source
Show context
gmm1990 ◴[16 May 25 13:23 UTC] No.44005203[source]▶
The same MIT license is in the ollama project as is in the llama.cpp project, is this not sufficient?

llamma.cpp https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/blob/master/LICENSE

ollama.cpp https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/LICENSE

replies(3): >>44005355 #>>44005403 #>>44005850 #
grodriguez100 ◴[16 May 25 13:39 UTC] No.44005403[source]▶
It is the same license but the copyright notice is different, so no, not sufficient.
replies(1): >>44005486 #
1. gmm1990 ◴[16 May 25 13:45 UTC] No.44005486[source]▶
Fair enough response to my post but they have the llama license too https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/llama/llama.cpp/L...
replies(2): >>44005571 #>>44009035 #
2. camgunz ◴[16 May 25 13:54 UTC] No.44005571[source]▶
The GH issue's point [0] is that this isn't in the binary distributions, but it has to be "included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software" (from the MIT license), which applies to binary distributions as well.

[0]: https://github.com/ollama/ollama/issues/3185

3. grodriguez100 ◴[16 May 25 19:35 UTC] No.44009035[source]▶
Right, sorry. Didn’t notice.