The OP is conflicted by wanting to share code under a permissive OSS license but regretting how this is benefitting certain users they dislike. I understand this, but at least it burns both ways (look at Microsoft's VS Code vs. Cursor and the other forks).
The way "real" OSS licenses (by OSI) allow use for any purpose has been a major reason the movement has succeeded and for that it's worth putting up with some users doing stuff the authors might not like.
And to the assertion that Copilot emits copyrighted code - this is in nobody's best interest, not the authors, Microsoft, or Microsoft's customers. Microsoft had to promise to legally defend any of its customers that are sued for using code that came from Copilot (https://www.legal.io/articles/5443653/Microsoft-Will-Pay-for...). I've used Copilot in a business setting and sometimes it will cancel a response because it detects that it contained copyrighted material. So Microsoft appears to be trying its best to avoid the main problem the article is concerned about, and they are confident enough that they are succeeding to make legal guarantees.
It seems to me the author is concerned about terms of a free software license not being maintained in versions of the code redistributed, especially by LLM agents.
The GPL requires derivative works to also be GPL licensed.
Will coplot or other tools abide by this requirement?
From what I read Microsoft claims to be able to ignore the licenses completely and apparently they don’t consider model training a derivative work. Bold position maybe we’ll see how that turns out.
The way "real" OSS licenses (by OSI) allow use for any purpose has been a major reason the movement has succeeded and for that it's worth putting up with some users doing stuff the authors might not like.