LLM code must be GPLv3, or whatever is the most protective/restrictive license used in the training dataset code.

short answer, no.

long answer,

The most interesting bit to me:

However, legal problems can also arise when the tool reproduces something that is already copyrighted, or at least closely enough to be legally actionable. This can be a concern with tools that have been trained on datasets that include copyrighted materials, and the likelihood of it happening shifts depending on a number of factors, including the ways in which the tool has been prompted, as well as the parameters used for the tool’s training model.

In such situations, the reproduction of copyrighted material (as well as its distribution or subsequent publication) constitutes copyright infringement. Generally in most jurisdictions, copyright infringement is a strict liability act: this means that the intention to commit copyright infringement is not necessary to establish whether or not the infringer is at fault. In other words, “I did not know that the LLM copied/reproduced this work” is not a valid defence against copyright infringement.

Liability for copyright infringement, if discovered, generally falls on the party who distributes it, which would be the user and not the creator of the LLM in question. Nevertheless, the traditional understanding of copyright infringement is also being challenged by the rise of AI technologies. For example, in the ongoing case of Author’s Guild et al v OpenAI, the US courts are still evaluating arguments about whether the production of copyrighted works in outputs should be considered “derivative works”, or merely replications. Until we have more legal certainty, it is worthwhile to keep these considerations in mind when using the various LLMs available to the public.