> The BSD license is not a product,

I do not understand how you could possibly misinterpret my comment that grossly.

The 3-clause BSD license requires you to attribute the source of your code, but simultaneously bans you from using this attribution to imply endorsement. The 4-clause BSD license additionally requires you to advertise the creator, while still banning you from implying endorsement. These are thus recognized as three separate things (attribution, endorsement, advertisement). Since the 4-clause license first appeared in 1990, this distinction has existed, uncontroversially, for over three decades. When the advertisement requirement was removed, the attribution requirement was kept, and nobody had a problem with that either, because we all understood that advertisement and attribution are not the same thing.

I will admit that there is an important difference between giving attribution to a human and giving attribution to a machine. It is not reasonable, for example, for the LLM companies to demand attribution from their users. But I think it is entirely reasonable for a FOSS project, after due consideration, to decide that transparency outweighs other concerns, and require LLM attribution for all LLM-assisted contributions.