This is a silly perspective, inaccurate, and out of bounds framing.

Public libraries, in this instance, is curated data from all the internet, obtained through not legal means (I don't have a problem with this other than lack of attribution, being copy-left). Just to be clear.

But in answer to your incredibly leading and inaccurate framing... they are required (by their job title) to teach to those who who show up in the classroom, it's not their place to discriminate against anyone/thing (even those like itself (other robots)) that also show up in the classroom.

But you can't teach at a university using only knowledge learned from the library. you need a degree. You are free to teach at the park, where anyone can hear you. public in -> public out.

No, but the students that learn and distill what the professor teaches are not obligated to use that information only how the professor wants them to.

'why is reselling stolen stuff bad'

if the professor took all human knowledge, much of which was explicitly not free, and used it to make a for-profit knowledge machine that extrudes unreliable summaries of that knowledge, then yes, being obligated to teach for free would be a fitting punishment.

More like, is a professor who learned from books prohibited from writing his own books on the subject?

1) No one is asking Anthropic to give tokens for free, but at market rates.

2) Any professor who tried to ban students from posting lecture notes online would be immediately mocked.

Who cares, a LLM isn’t a person.