I'm not sure about licenses that explicitly forbid LLM use -- although you could always modify a license to require this! -- but GPL licensed projects require that you also make the software you create open source.

I'm not sure that LLMs respect that restriction (since they generally don't attibute their code).

I'm not even really sure if that clause would apply to LLM generated code, though I'd imagine that it should.

Very likely no license can restrict it, since learning is not covered under copyright. Even if you could restrict it, you couldn't add a "no LLMs" clause without violating the free software principles or the OSI definition, since you cannot discriminate in your license.

"Learning" is what humans can do. LLMs can't do that.

“Learning” as a concept is too ill defined to use as a distinction. What is learning? How is what a human does different from what an LLM does?

In the end it doesn’t matter. Here “learning” means observing an existing work and using it to produce something that is not a copy.

They don't require it if you don't include OSS artifacts/code in your shipped product. You can use gcc to build closed source software.

> You can use gcc to build closed source software

Note that this tends to require specific license exemptions. In particular, GCC links various pieces of functionality into your program that would normally trigger the GPL to apply to the whole program, and for this reason, those components had to be placed under the "GCC Runtime Library Exception"[1]

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html

those that require attribution

so... all of them