Literally any license that says any derivatives of your work must include attribution, bonus points if you use a license that says derivative works must be shared under the same license, eg GPL or MIT.

The AI Bros will take it anyway though and ignore your license, and the courts are very pro-business and AI is like half the US economy at this point, so it's probably all pretty pointless.

They're currently being sued for just that in Doe's v. GitHub et al, which has already been going on for years. Currently its waiting to be scheduled in the 9th circuit, they've already been waiting 18 months.

There are various licenses that do that, but by definition they are not open source. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

I found this, which adds additional text to the existing licenses to prohibit training an AI on the licensed code: https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses

Though, per OSI's definition, your code probably would no longer be open source, since training an LLM is technically considered a field of endeavour:

OSD number 6:

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Do you think the companies scraping your data give a fuck?

The problem is that the AI companies claim they are just "reading" the code to let their AI models learn from it, thus licenses / copyright doesn't apply in their interpretation of the situation.

Licensing only works as well as enforcing it. How do you show a LLM consumed your code as part of its training data?

The thing about licenses is that they only work if they can be defended in court. In the US system in particular, it is simply impossible for a private individual to do so (even multi-billion-dollar corporations with their highly paid lawyers seem to be powerless against artificially inflated AI giants such as OpenAI).

Therefore, it must be assumed that even restrictive licenses will simply be disregarded.

CC BY-SA is this, in spirit.

This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms.

See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

There are other flavours of Creative Commons licenses that might suit you better. Anyway, worth looking into.

Technically, a lot of them already disallow this without maintaining copyright notices, which the AI companies aren’t doing. I doubt the AI companies would follow the new license, but at least it would be even more explicitly illegal.

It may be that such a license can't exist. The way these viral copyleft licenses work is that they offer things to people who accept them that copyright otherwise doesn't permit. The usual example: you can distribute copies of this work (a thing that copyright prohibits you from doing by default) but in exchange you must release any derivative works you make under the same licence.

The problem is that you actually can reject that licence. You can download the software (that's allowed because the person distributing the software agreed to the copyleft license) and then decide you're not going to accept the license that came with it. At that point you're restricted by ordinary copyright and can only do the things you'd normally do with it.

There have already been court cases in the US that have ruled that training an AI is fair use, and the resulting model is not a derivative work covered by the copyright of the original. So you can just go ahead and train the AI at that point.

Freedom 1 of the four software freedoms is:

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

As nice as this would be, it's not very likely... Licenses are usually limp suggestions from the perspective of companies with billions of dollars. AI companies train on millions of copyrighted materials, both literature and art, without any express permission from the authors or artists, and with essentially no recourse or compensation to the authors. You could append a 'no AI training' clause to an existing license like the MIT license, but the impact that will have will mostly be brief personal satisfaction and won't change what the AI companies do. It's genuinely more useful to keep code proprietary to prevent it from being used to train AI models.

You can create your own license with whatever idiotic limitations you wish.

Example: Litsenzy -- zis code for no bad peple, no robots and no to that ugly shit who stepped on my foot yesterday in ze tram.