[zishha1b0njq]

This post is empty of any relevant content.

I wish HN would stop sharing drama-seeking posts, especially by anonymous authors, attacking the hard work of people.

Are ollama's authors perfect? No, they are just humans. But many people find their work valuable and we should support Open Source.

I can assure you that you won't like the world where nobody release Open Source projects anymore because of the constant negativity.

[pyaamb]

Do you see any negativity towards llama.cpp? This isnt drama-seeking. The author makes very valid points.

[Krasnol]

This anonymous author made some good points, supported by good sources.

It looks more like you're the anonymous author attacking the hard work of the author of this blog post.

The blog post alone has more relevance then the ad-post.

[pierotofy]

Taking credit for other people's work while raising millions? Yeah, pretty bad and relevant.

[inigyou]

See also: why friends don't let friends use permissive software licenses.

The llama.cpp authorized ollama to do this... Unintentionally.

[msm_]

Literally the main point of this blog post:

>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.

[inigyou]

How sure are we that it didn't include the notice? There isn't any prescribed form or location for the notice, so you're trying to prove a negative.