My code has a license that disallows using it to create proprietary software, but it seems that proprietary LLMs are still being trained on it.

Training on your code and using your code are very different things. As a human, if your code is open, I can read it, learn how it works and reuse my knowledge to create proprietary source code without infringing on your license.

I am talking about the model itself, not the code it produces. You are not proprietary software.

Almost none of the common licenses allow this, because at the very least they have an attribution requirement. Licenses are being ignored.

Attribution doesn’t apply on training. We’d all be screwed otherwise, it would mean you’d have to attribute everything you learned while reading open source codes to every codebase you read every time you write code.

Either attribute or don't use it, that's what the license says.

"Doesn't apply" is just opinion right now until settled in court, hopefully the other way.

I'm curious to hear why you think so though? Any other license terms you routinely ignore?

> I'm curious to hear why you think so though?

As I said: it would mean you’d have to attribute everything you learned while reading open source codes to every codebase you read every time you write code.