I see what you are saying and don't completely disagree. I however feel that the spirit of free software is to set all software free. From that it follows, that if we are going to follow the current route of complete disregard for authorship and licenses, then the free software movement should continue fighting to liberate all software in existence. In other words, those LLM's that you mention that are to enable software freedom for users who cannot code themselves, in a fair world, they would be trained with both free and proprietary software. After all, a derivative work from a proprietary software should also be subject to fair use. The output produced by the LLM wouldn't necessarily be a literal copy-paste of any particular proprietary software... as the models would just be "learning" from them. The company could just continue doing business as usual, build on their brand and yada yada yada.
Regarding the licensing, I'll restate my point that the Affero license was created precisely in a moment where the existing licenses could no longer uphold the freedoms that the Free Software Foundation set out to defend. A change of license was the right solution at that particular point in time and, if it worked then, I think we can all agree that there is at least a precedent that such a course of action might work and should at the very least be considered as a possible solution for today's problems.
That said, my own personal view is more aligned with demanding the nation states to pressure big corporations so that currently closed-source software becomes at least open-source (either by law, or simply by stopping using it and invest their budget in free alternatives instead). Note I said open source and not free. I just would like to read their code and feed it to my LLM's :)
Regarding the licensing, I'll restate my point that the Affero license was created precisely in a moment where the existing licenses could no longer uphold the freedoms that the Free Software Foundation set out to defend. A change of license was the right solution at that particular point in time and, if it worked then, I think we can all agree that there is at least a precedent that such a course of action might work and should at the very least be considered as a possible solution for today's problems.
That said, my own personal view is more aligned with demanding the nation states to pressure big corporations so that currently closed-source software becomes at least open-source (either by law, or simply by stopping using it and invest their budget in free alternatives instead). Note I said open source and not free. I just would like to read their code and feed it to my LLM's :)