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

[Andrew Pinski via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 4:07 PM Adhemerval Zanella Netto <
adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/06/26 16:29, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 12:19 PM Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com
> <mailto:carlos@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Developers,
> >
> >     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 David Edelsohn 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.
> >
> >     --
> >     Cheers,
> >     Carlos.
> >
> >     P.S. This is not an endorsement of Anthropic, Claude or LLMs. We
> dislike
> >     having to say it, but please don’t use this thread as a platform to
> express
> >     your personal opinions about the companies or about AI’s impact on
> the world.
> >
> >
> > Dont send out emails like this in the first place then.
> >
> > Also note coverity has been offering similar services for code coverage
> and static analysis for years now. But there was no notice like that sent
> out for this. Why try to push llm when static analysis does the same?
>
>
> gnulib guys seem to be experimenting with LLM for patch review recently
> [1],
> and it has uncovered real regressions [2]. And I recall that their
> experience with Coverity has been subpar [3], and I think they even
> started
> disregarding it.
>
> Personally, I see value in adding an LLM to the patch review phase,
> especially
> since we lack manpower and initial triage can help newcomers and uncover
> some
> issues.
>


All of this talk about llm and llm reviews is off-topic for this list.
Including the original email is off-topic and should not have been sent.

Carlos,
  Can you step down from the llm gcc working group for this email since it
shows a conflict of interest of prompting one product.  Plus it shows poor
taste of sending out an email about a non free product to a mailing list
about glibc development.
Can I also ask you to step down from CoC for violating the CoC here?

Thanks,
Andrea



>
>
>
> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2026-06/msg00016.html
> [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2026-06/msg00037.html
> [3] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2019-05/msg00059.html
>