From the article: "The project’s binary distributions didn’t include the required MIT license notice for the llama.cpp code they were shipping. This isn’t a matter of open-source etiquette, the MIT license has exactly one major requirement: include the copyright notice. Ollama didn’t."

I'm always puzzled by how often I see this happen in the open source community. Can the llama.cpp take legal action against Ollama for this? What's the point of these licensing requirements if they aren't (or can't be) enforced meaningfully? Note: I'm not blaming the llama.cpp team for inaction here, I just want to see them get some justice!

This should be front page material if it hasn’t been already.

On top of it being thorough and illustrative, it’s surprisingly engaging.

Also: I had no idea.