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.

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.