I guess the use of the legal angle is mostly so that once the courts decide whether AI training without permission is stealing or not, there is a chance that LLM companies will have to declare all the produced code under GPL/conflicting licences and will be bankrupt overnight as they will need to retrain from scratch with allowed sources.

AFAIK, that’s correct, it considers serving the software as a a service as equivalent to distributing it under the GPL, so as soon as you have 1 remote user, you have to agree to distribute the code under request.

Both the Omarchy shilling and these attempts at smearing a lot of people with the least charitable interpretation possible of their words and actions feel incredibly artificial, so I’m going to do what is best for me and ignore both.