[DiabloD3]

Ollama is quasi-open source.

In some places in the source code they claim sole ownership of the code, when it is highly derivative of that in llama.cpp (having started its life as a llama.cpp frontend). They keep it the same license, however, MIT.

There is no reason to use Ollama as an alternative to llama.cpp, just use the real thing instead.

[simondotau]

If it’s MIT code derived from MIT code, in what way is its openness ”quasi”? Issues of attribution and crediting diminish the karma of the derived project, but I don’t see how it diminishes the level of openness.

[DiabloD3]

FOSS licensing can only exist in terms of Copyright. Without Copyright, you cannot license FOSS. If something has an incorrect Copyright attribution, then the license can be viewed as invalid until this deficiency has been corrected (obv. depending on local laws, etc).

On top of this, it would not be unreasonable for the numerous authors of llama.cpp to issue DMCA takedown requests if Ollama is unwilling to correct it.