Hello! It has been very nice to read the thoughts and opinions, and I have comments because I have not found anything in the ASF guidelines or related documents regarding the watermark that is being required under the AI Act’s Transparency Code. Different regulators around the world are increasingly mandating that such watermarks be embedded into AI-generated code.
>From my perspective, it is clear that because the ASF is a U.S.-based entity, it must comply with the laws, regulations, and policies of its host country. However, this raises an important question about code contributed from foreign jurisdictions and how such contributions should be handled in light of local regulations. I believe the guidelines, whether from the ASF or the Apache Fineract project, should explicitly address AI usage. These guidelines should also be treated as living documents rather than static ones, given how rapidly the AI landscape is evolving. Every user, contributor, reviewer, and adopter should be aware that different jurisdictions have varying approaches to AI generation and usage, particularly with respect to intellectual property, copyright, and transparency requirements. I would also be interested to know whether the ASF infrastructure team has any recommendations regarding GitHub Actions, tools, or other mechanisms that could help identify AI-generated code (especially in light of the emerging watermarking requirements), and a final thought... so then the Apache Fineract will have the ticket in this regulated jurisdiction "Apache Fineract contains AI generated code and can make mistakes. Please check the cited sources again" ? Regards, Victor Romero El mar, 1 sept 2026 a las 16:33, Adam Monsen (<[email protected]>) escribió: > James Dailey wrote: > >> https://rai.apache.org/ai-generated-code.html (again DRAFT) >> > > +1. This is excellent. >
