4 ms·

Fair enough response to my post but they have the llama license too https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/llama/llama.cpp/LICENSE https://github.com/ollama

by gmm1990 1y ago

Fair enough response to my post but they have the llama license too https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/llama/llama.cpp/LICENSE https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/llama/llama.cpp/L...

Tomte 1y ago
They need to supply license text and copyright notice with the binary distribution, as well. Many, many projects on GitHub don’t do it and are not license compliant.
- lolinder 1y ago
  That is actually unspecified in the license, undecided in court, and as you note very infrequently applied. I can see an argument that the license ought to be read that way, but the fact is that it very rarely is. The only reason why Ollama is being singled out here is because people have long-standing beef with them not doing the regular polite attribution that actually is normal in the community.
  - Tomte 1y ago
    Funny how all those large companies are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year getting those attributions right. All those open source license information pages like https://sieportal.siemens.com/oss/oss.html https://sieportal.siemens.com/oss/oss.html are just for fun, right?
    - genewitch 1y ago
      The Playstation 3/4 and the switch also have such license information available via a menu that isn't buried, too. This cellphone has settings -> about - > legal - > open source licenses - the top option. That opens a window that is hundreds of pages long of links to licenses for every library used.
  - toast0 1y ago
    The license says: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Is your argument that a binary is not a copy or substantial portion of the Software? If you distribute a binary, I think it's pretty obvious that either the binary itself should include the notice and the license, or the archive with the binary should include it. Ex: most packaging systems include the licenses in the docs directory that nobody looks at, which is probably sufficient.

Fair enough response to my post but they have the llama license too https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/llama/llama.cpp/LICENSE https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/llama/llama.cpp/L...

Tomte 1y ago

They need to supply license text and copyright notice with the binary distribution, as well. Many, many projects on GitHub don’t do it and are not license compliant.

lolinder 1y ago
That is actually unspecified in the license, undecided in court, and as you note very infrequently applied. I can see an argument that the license ought to be read that way, but the fact is that it very rarely is. The only reason why Ollama is being singled out here is because people have long-standing beef with them not doing the regular polite attribution that actually is normal in the community.
- Tomte 1y ago
  Funny how all those large companies are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year getting those attributions right. All those open source license information pages like https://sieportal.siemens.com/oss/oss.html https://sieportal.siemens.com/oss/oss.html are just for fun, right?
  - genewitch 1y ago
    The Playstation 3/4 and the switch also have such license information available via a menu that isn't buried, too. This cellphone has settings -> about - > legal - > open source licenses - the top option. That opens a window that is hundreds of pages long of links to licenses for every library used.
- toast0 1y ago
  The license says: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Is your argument that a binary is not a copy or substantial portion of the Software? If you distribute a binary, I think it's pretty obvious that either the binary itself should include the notice and the license, or the archive with the binary should include it. Ex: most packaging systems include the licenses in the docs directory that nobody looks at, which is probably sufficient.