Do these types of things really matter anymore? If you have tokens, given the source is available pretty easy to reimplement with plausible deniability.

https://malus.sh/ (I think it was intended to be satire/critique)

It's a quixotic crusade, in perfect European style.

As much as I dislike isomorphic plagiarism, your point is very valid...

It is a viable argument, and people shouldn't bury such insights given the estimated $9Tn worth of opensource work that was appropriated. =3

Then again, it's not like even before the plagiarising slop machines you couldn't just get around licenses if you were dedicated enough to evil and was comfortable lying about the provenance of the code you're using.

Sure, it'd make all the lawyer types nervous for obvious reasons, but that's why you'd also need to be comfortable with the evil deed. But you're correct that the evil plagiarism machine makes it way easier.

If you think an LLM can just implement e.g. an alternative to the Linux kernel from scratch (or any other GPL licensed software), you might be falling for the marketing.

Have you seen LLMs build large, stable, pieces of software, that work well, with your own eyes? I have not. I have seen LLMs build small, well-understood things, and I've seen LLMs do super well with extremely well specified problems, but all the rest seems to be marketing (i.e. I couldn't observe or reproduce it).

Edit: I'm not talking about throwaway slop that just needs to run long enough to get funding.

I think there's been a mistake in the thinking that restricting the licensing on open source projects will make the companies that use them as a service would make them contribute.

They don't, the companies just replace the software in question.