It is the same license but the copyright notice is different, so no, not sufficient.
Fair enough response to my post but they have the llama license too https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/llama/llama.cpp/L...
The GH issue's point [0] is that this isn't in the binary distributions, but it has to be "included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software" (from the MIT license), which applies to binary distributions as well.