←back to thread

Ollama violating llama.cpp license for over a year

(github.com)
202 points Jabrov | 1 comments | 16 May 25 10:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.192s | source
Show context
gittubaba ◴[16 May 25 16:07 UTC] No.44007086[source]▶
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...

replies(2): >>44007416 #>>44007868 #
1. int_19h ◴[16 May 25 17:22 UTC] No.44007868[source]▶
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