Add LICENSE

[prusnak]

This repository is missing a LICENSE file. I assume it should be MIT, the same license as used in https://github.com/ggerganov/whisper.cpp and https://github.com/ggerganov/ggml, so I went ahead and created this PR.

If the plan is not to release the source code under the MIT license, feel free to close the PR.

[DDBE12]

This is a mere fork or portation of this: https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama The original is made and owned by Facebook/Meta and has a proprietary Meta license: https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE On the one hand, I'm not even sure if that's a legal way of licensing to slap an MIT license on a simple portation of somebody else's code.

On the other hand, being made and owned by Meta, it's no surprise that Replicate, a framework to run Llama locally, states in their very own TOS they intend on stealing, publishing, and probably selling to third parties every single bit of content their users are giving them, just like Facebook/Meta does: https://replicate.com/terms In Meta's own Llama license linked above, they even provide for lawsuits against Llama and Meta for stealing user content, by threatening to immediately terminate user accounts for trying to get the rights to one's property back, while Replicate, Llama, and Meta themselves are keeping the stolen user content.

[prusnak]

This is a mere fork or portation of this

You argument is invalid because:

1. this is not a fork, because the code is written from scratch, not reusing any of the original code
2. software licenses do not recognize such thing as "portation"
3. when the llama.cpp project was conceived, the LLaMA license was still an open-source license (GPLv3) - see https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/llama_v1/LICENSE - if this was a fork, the llama.cpp would also need to have the same license, but since it is not (see point 1), it is fine to have MIT here as well

[DDBE12]

"when the llama.cpp project was conceived, the LLaMA license was still an open-source license (GPLv3) - see https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/llama_v1/LICENSE - if this was a fork, the llama.cpp would also need to have the same license, but since it is not (see point 1), it is fine to have MIT here as well"

The only reason this fork or portation now has an MIT license is because you as an outsider literally "assumed" that it should have an MIT license when you didn't even know this is originally Meta code ported to C++, just see your very own OP above,