Re: Nominations for Anthropic’s Claude for Open Source program

[Thomas Dineen via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>]

Polite words do not seem to work! So here it is:

This reflector is exclusively for the development of GDB Open source 
Software!!!

Take your AI garbage to the appropriate forum.



On 6/17/2026 10:27 PM, Eli Zaretskii via Gdb wrote:
>> Cc: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>,
>>   Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>, glibc
>>   developers <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, gdb developers <gdb@sourceware.org>
>> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 13:28:57 -0300
>> From: Alexandre Oliva via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>
>>
>> Now, if it was another mailing list member forwarding spam that
>> advertised a 30-days-gratis bait for a service entirely misaligned with
>> the purposes of GNU in general and of GNU libc specifically, to the
>> point of opposing those purposes, would you still be favorable to it?
> That's a significant exaggeration, to put it mildly.  I invite you
> (and everyone else who wants to make up their minds independently) to
> re-read the original message posted by David.  I find no advertisement
> there, let alone spam.
>
> Here's that message again:
>
>    Anthropic is generously offering 6 months of Claude Max 20x to Free
>    and Open Source Software projects to support the FOSS
>    ecosystem. These tools can be incredibly helpful with reviewing
>    upstream code, evaluating the conformance of a particular interface
>    to a standard, or just for your own learning and exploring the
>    implementation of the project or subsystem.
>
>    If you are an established, active contributor to the GNU Toolchain
>    and are interested in having access to Claude Max 20x under
>    Anthropic’s Claude for Open Source program, please respond to this
>    email thread with a short description of how you would utilize the
>    access and the potential impact on the GNU Toolchain.  The program's
>    slots are limited and Carlos O'Donell and I plan to review the
>    proposals. Please keep in mind that these are individual grants from
>    Anthropic to you personally. If you are approved you’ll get an email
>    from Anthropic with further instructions.
>
>    While the current GNU Project policy is not to accept LLM-generated
>    content in the projects, that still leaves other uses like bug
>    triage, patch review, and research as ways to use these tools.
>
> This basically says that if someone wants to use the 6-month offer to
> work on GNU tools, they should describe their plans and apply for a
> slot in using the tools.  That's it.  It even explicitly says in a
> P.S. that "This is not an endorsement of Anthropic, Claude or LLMs".
>
> Please be fair and don't accuse people who post here in something they
> didn't say.  You don't have to agree, and you don't need to volunteer
> to use Anthropic's proposal, but let's have minimally-civil
> discussions here, okay?  Even your selection of
> intentionally-denigrating words ("spam", "losers", etc.) is highly
> inappropriate in civilized discussions, given what the original
> message actually said.
>
>> Will your stance change when bots subscribe to these lists, and then
>> start posting advertisement targeted at our developers but otherwise
>> bearing no relationship with the project?  Will you then call for such
>> spam to be blocked, or will we all have to endure it because some day
>> you decreed that it was ok?
> Not relevant.  Blocking spam and bots, regardless of the content of
> those messages, is the job of the list moderators and they generally
> do their job just fine so far.
>
>>> Where I draw the line, and where it can be drawn is in what we write down
>>> in our documentation, likewise in our process.
>> Our mailing lists are part of the project as well, and people who take
>> part in the project or even lead it are expected to behave in line with
>> the project, rather than against it, at the very least when
>> participating in project fora and activities.
>>
>> Advertising services antagonic to and destructive of user freedom is
>> really way out of line.
> Again, there was no advertising.  This is uncalled-for.  Please find
> more polite words to express your disagreement (if you must: after
> all, that was a call for volunteers, and you don't have to volunteer
> nor respond if you don't like the proposal).
>
> More generally, I'm disappointed by the hostility and the general
> style some people allow themselves to use in this discussion.  We
> don't deserve to call ourselves a community that promotes a better
> society if we cannot talk between ourselves in a kinder manner.  Shame
> on us!