Ollama violating llama.cpp license for over a year

Huh, I wonder if people really follow MIT in that form. I don't remember any binary I downloaded from github that contained a third_party_licenses or dependency_licenses folder that contained every linked library's LICENCE files...

Do any of you guys remember having a third_party_licenses folder after downloading a binary release from github/sourceforge? I think many popular tools will be out of compliance if this was checked...

It's certainly not unheard of but, of those who bother to comply, I think most who go this route just embed the info into the binary instead of adding more files.

Likely the only reason this is noteworthy is someone checked a year ago but no correction was ever made.

At every company I worked for in the past 20 years, including such a file in any public release on any channel is part of the standard legal checklist. It's usually not a folder though but rather a single file where all the mentions are combined:

https://github.com/search?q=THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES&type=code