In the US, to my understanding: 1. The Copyright Office requires human authorship for a work to be protected by copyright. So in theory, someone else could cop

In the US, to my understanding: 1. The Copyright Office requires human authorship for a work to be protected by copyright. So in theory, someone else could copy the parts of your project that were LLM-generated without obeying your license's requirements (such as to give credit). Parts that you added and the work as a whole would still be protected 2. Regarding potential infringement of the training data: from progress in ongoing cases so far, copyright's requirement for substantial similarity has been upheld[0] for model output. So if your code doesn't resemble some protected work (and I think common coding LLM services have some attempts at preventing this) you should be in the clear there So I don't see anything against using whatever open-source license you normally would. [0]: E.G: in Stable Diffusion case, Judge William H. Orrick agreed with the defendants that "plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege the Output Images are substantially similar or re-present protected aspects of copyrighted Training Images, especially in light of plaintiffs' admission that Output Images are unlikely to look like the Training Images"