←back to thread

202 points Jabrov | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
rlpb ◴[] No.44004169[source]
I don't see how this claimed issue is valid.

https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/llama/llama.cpp/L... says:

"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

The issue submitter claims:

"The terms of the MIT license require that it distribute the copyright notice in both source and binary form."

But: a) that doesn't seem to be in the license text as far I can see; b) I see no evidence that upstream arranged to ship any notice in their binaries, so I don't see how it's reasonable to expect downstreams to do it; and c) in the distribution world (Debian, etc) that takes great care about license compliance, patching upstreams to include copyright notices in binaries isn't a thing. It's not the norm, and this is considered acceptable in our ecosystem.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the issue linked does not make the case that there's anything unacceptable going on here.

replies(6): >>44004268 #>>44004435 #>>44004436 #>>44005493 #>>44005587 #>>44009880 #
1. grodriguez100 ◴[] No.44005493[source]
a) Correct. b) Not relevant. The license says what it says regardless of what upstream does or doesn’t do. If someone wants to use the code they should comply with the license requirements.

A README is often included with binaries. That’s a good place to include any licensing information.