The point was to separate MIT and GPL was wrong.

> My personal thought on that: it's going to be almost guaranteed that, if an LLM is producing stuff it clearly derived from a certain piece of code XYZ, it will also be capable of producing the correct answer to the question "what's the license for XYZ?" And lawyers will successfully argue that this counts as "included".

The MIT license terms are not say the name the license if asked. They are The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

And this would be improbable for many reasons I think.

> Sure, but developers are permitted to learn from open source code with restrictive copyrights, and apply those lessons to developing other software which does not comply with the copyright of their 'example'.

This was a different argument. And there is no contradiction to separate LLMs and people.

> As an aside, I do believe that LLM trainers are ignoring and violating many licenses, but open-source software is not a clear example of a violation.

How?

Reproduce is a definition of replicate. And LLMs reproduced code.

Most licenses do.

The view LLMs should respect open source software licenses is not for replication alone. Models and generated code are derived from training data.