ollama doesn't distribute notice licenses in its release artifacts

### What is the issue? ollama uses projects like llama.cpp as a statically linked dependency. The terms of the MIT license require that it distribute the copyright notice in both source and binary form. Yet if I `grep` for "Georgi Gerganov" on my Linux and Windows installation folders for ollama, the copyright notices are nowhere to be found. This is a violation of the terms of the license which should be rectified. ### What did you expect to see? I expected the copyright notices of dependent projects to be at minimum present within the binary artifacts. Some people online are of the opinion that a mention of llama.cpp should be present in places like the README as well, although the license doesn't strictly require that. ### Steps to reproduce _No response_ ### Are there any recent changes that introduced the issue? ``` grep -iR 'Georgi Gerganov' AppData/Local/Programs/Ollama/ grep -R 'Georgi Gerganov' /usr/local/bin/ollama etc. ``` ### OS Other ### Architecture Other ### Platform _No response_ ### Ollama version _No response_ ### GPU _No response_ ### GPU info _No response_ ### CPU _No response_ ### Other software _No response_

Posted by jart on Mar 16, 2024, 7:13 PM

Tags

• github (SaaS)

Related issues

• 2026 - Microsoft Office 365
• [Ubuntu] `ubuntu-latest` label will use Ubuntu 26.04 in November 2026
• Gamut mapping
• [Codex Desktop] Editing and resending a queued message triggers "App-server queued follow-up no longer exists"
• [Windows] ChatGPT 26.820.60940 fails with "invalid transport in mcp_servers.codex_app"; Beta 26.727.40816 works
• [BUG]: infinite loading of videos