Ollama violating llama.cpp license for over a year

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.

If it's not valid, why was this ticket not disputed and/or closed?

Not really a fan of the “failure to sufficiently deny an accusation is an admission of guilt” line of thought.

Maybe they’re getting a legal opinion. Maybe they’re leaving it open while they talk business to business. Maybe the right person to address the issue is on vacation.

Lots of people and companies choose not to engage in public battles. I don’t think that should be read as a sign of guilt (or innocence).