Prior (but largely predating the current wave of LLM-generated code) related discussion I found is
There are recent moves to at large ban AI-generated projects from some hosting portals (e.g. see Codeberg's July 2026 ToU update) and attempts of downstream projects to avoid using LLM-altered core toolchains (e.g. see @joeyh "no llm code").
This also aligns with the Software Freedom Conservancy's June 2026 recommendations on LLM-backed generative AI, whose Rec. 5 calls for AI-assistance provenance to be "included in a machine-readable format in commit logs" but leaves the schema open, pending community convergence.
So IMHO it becomes important to explicitly annotate AI produced content within the REUSE framework.
There is already a SPDX-FileContributor and SPDX-FileComment "to credit additional contributors", but I feel that we currently need a dedicated "LLM" annotation where we start potentially mixing in original copyrightable human expression and then potentially a cocktail of derived content from other copyrighted materials used during training.
And there I also feel worthy to distinguish
generated-by-ai: (e.g. by claude code doing most of code writing) vs assisted-by-ai: where "completion" style assist is provided and likely copyrightable expression is more with the current "human author".
SPDX 3.0 already ships an AI Profile (April 2024), but its scope is AI systems as artifacts (models, training data, energy) — not "this source file was drafted with AI assistance." So it is complementary, not overlapping, and REUSE would not be pre-empting SPDX by recommending a file-level convention now. Commit-level conventions (Co-Authored-By:, the emerging Assisted-by: trailer) describe the event of a commit; they don't survive as artifact-level metadata after squash/rebase or when a package is redistributed without git history (and I recall that forgejo might be dropping adding those by default into merge commits). That is the gap a file-level convention would fill.
So, if not a separate new field, could/should there be recommendation to e.g. use those with explicit annotation like
SPDX-FileContributor: generated-by-ai: <tool> <tool-version> / <model> <model-version>
SPDX-FileContributor: assisted-by-ai: <tool> <tool-version> / <model> <model-version>
? Then, potentially reuse-tool could "channel" that metadata from commit messages into file headers or REUSE.toml.
For now, it could be just a recommended convention in the docs/FAQ (not a spec change) that authors may use SPDX-FileContributor: with a generated-by-ai: / assisted-by-ai: prefix, pending eventual SPDX standardization if you feel that it should fall under SPDX agenda more than under REUSE. WDYT?
Prior (but largely predating the current wave of LLM-generated code) related discussion I found is
which is open without any kind of conclusion on human (hopefully having unique copyrightable expression) - vs - tool (likely not even "additionally" copyrightable per se if just mechanistically produced content out of copyrightable human expression(s)). That thread is framed around deterministic tool-generation (Meson WrapDB), not generative AI.
There are recent moves to at large ban AI-generated projects from some hosting portals (e.g. see Codeberg's July 2026 ToU update) and attempts of downstream projects to avoid using LLM-altered core toolchains (e.g. see @joeyh "no llm code").
This also aligns with the Software Freedom Conservancy's June 2026 recommendations on LLM-backed generative AI, whose Rec. 5 calls for AI-assistance provenance to be "included in a machine-readable format in commit logs" but leaves the schema open, pending community convergence.
So IMHO it becomes important to explicitly annotate AI produced content within the REUSE framework.
There is already a
SPDX-FileContributorandSPDX-FileComment"to credit additional contributors", but I feel that we currently need a dedicated "LLM" annotation where we start potentially mixing in original copyrightable human expression and then potentially a cocktail of derived content from other copyrighted materials used during training.And there I also feel worthy to distinguish
generated-by-ai:(e.g. by claude code doing most of code writing) vsassisted-by-ai:where "completion" style assist is provided and likely copyrightable expression is more with the current "human author".SPDX 3.0 already ships an AI Profile (April 2024), but its scope is AI systems as artifacts (models, training data, energy) — not "this source file was drafted with AI assistance." So it is complementary, not overlapping, and REUSE would not be pre-empting SPDX by recommending a file-level convention now. Commit-level conventions (
Co-Authored-By:, the emergingAssisted-by:trailer) describe the event of a commit; they don't survive as artifact-level metadata after squash/rebase or when a package is redistributed without git history (and I recall that forgejo might be dropping adding those by default into merge commits). That is the gap a file-level convention would fill.So, if not a separate new field, could/should there be recommendation to e.g. use those with explicit annotation like
? Then, potentially reuse-tool could "channel" that metadata from commit messages into file headers or REUSE.toml.
For now, it could be just a recommended convention in the docs/FAQ (not a spec change) that authors may use
SPDX-FileContributor:with agenerated-by-ai:/assisted-by-ai:prefix, pending eventual SPDX standardization if you feel that it should fall under SPDX agenda more than under REUSE. WDYT?