> The terms of the MIT license require that it distribute the copyright notice in both source and binary form.
No, MIT does not require that. The license says:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
The exact meaning of this sentence has never been challenged and never been ruled upon. Considering ollama's README has a link to llama.cpp's project page (which includes the license), I'd say the requirement has been satisfied.
“Linking to a page that includes” is not the same as “including”. I don’t think that the requirement is satisfied.
I have been aware that Ollama is based on/uses llama.cpp since the first day I started using Ollama. It is not like Ollama is trying to hide the use of llama,cpp, but sure, it would be a good idea in the Ollama app to have a reference in an 'About' menu item, or some such place.
It is certainly possible for a new Ollama user to not notice the acknowledgement.
It's not a matter of "would be a good idea", it's a legal matter of you're in breach of someone else's copyright.
Good for you, but there are many people who aren't aware of this fact, precisely because Ollama is so non-transparent about it. It comes up regularly on r/LocalLLaMA etc.
"The above copyright notice" refers to this line [0] from llama.cpp's LICENSE: "Copyright (c) 2023-2024 The ggml authors". ollama doesn't include it.
[0]: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/blob/master/LICENSE#L3...
> ollama doesn't include it.
I see it here? https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/llama/llama.cpp/L...