From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id uYBqNC32M2p+hA0AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 09:44:13 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=O/HAgjYl; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id D28FD1E098; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 09:44:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Received: from vm01.sourceware.org (vm01.sourceware.org [38.145.34.32]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F24721E024 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 09:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vm01.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8418D4BAD158 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:44:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8418D4BAD158 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1781790252; bh=+7r1vOKg5Zbym6I6wARwW2IWRqdme4lY7NSfU1ckEi4=; h=To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=O/HAgjYl161G6LnVMJ9bUYLMdSClQVwk22tVS3I15oZ5dz9gxYRY4jGW598ngoTW7 5LwN5RIOfDr/AQ/IYJdSSh6LgLNZOskSvG/xK+dWKJTaW70A9F6AKPaDSoaXwzLb5c ryhdfhjxPfWy0FcG9F2BrY6+iJshNf4Q2gr0HRZU= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 202FE4BA2E1A; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:43:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 202FE4BA2E1A ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 202FE4BA2E1A ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1781790218; cv=none; b=RbUBGfSrQcsh8O+zinqnQ4mdMjPwcVVCdzqNbMq7/QPyhmlJTExBLdh2PuH5FIGameUlT1NuRXNVI7zQlMH8kBdbwPOkIjf6r2cyvpgLo5kog/AwKX+GoSjc0sCn81fTxDUBJRAlwGbIxJZc+IPQQrIokmzlPiv1OJwJmH3NJiQ= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1781790218; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wdH1yexIS+nQasN5c8gsR294AGd5hdid6JEf+SOtz40=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=cbDDVv8mP/uCC59TK3ZXy2FBB7fEe/MYOFdEN53/B0ZdhT6Dv8RbD1oF7bJKXppJ+nKXjlvsbuUlqZjlkePB9n9AGru1ZUg9CUgYNzAHdNYeK4nHk+eB3AA29J2AzHQoa61zHRqebqdHaF7eroKp1g6BphfeY9+9eXbSYLmhZl4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 202FE4BA2E1A Received: from linux-libre.fsfla.org ([2001:470:142:5::54] helo=free.home) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1waD1s-0006C8-V7; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 09:43:37 -0400 Received: from livre (livre.home [172.31.160.2]) by free.home (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 65IDhOMu224010 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 18 Jun 2026 10:43:25 -0300 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: carlos@redhat.com, mark@klomp.org, pinskia@gmail.com, adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Nominations for =?utf-8?Q?Anthropic=E2=80=99s?= Claude for Open Source program Organization: Free thinker, not speaking for the GNU Project References: <5c2e18dd-807c-4331-b12c-a5b17b256f5b@linaro.org> <32efa4408237f7c0c19be0aa79c8f75a2df6e2ab.camel@klomp.org> <5158b893-6bb4-4856-acc8-876157671f34@redhat.com> <20260616110344.GI6729@gnu.wildebeest.org> <7cf212fa-e432-4603-bfec-33a2923a9b21@redhat.com> <86ldccifk0.fsf@gnu.org> <865x3gi9de.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 10:43:24 -0300 In-Reply-To: <865x3gi9de.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 18 Jun 2026 10:41:01 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Alexandre Oliva via Gdb Reply-To: Alexandre Oliva Errors-To: gdb-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On Jun 18, 2026, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > That's plausibly Anthropic's motivation, but you accused David in > advertising, not Anthropic. Yeah, just like the TV or influencer's channel (or radio, magazine, newspaper, website, etc) who advertises someone else's product, what they're doing is advertising. Is this a language issue, maybe? > I do care what you say about David and other members of > our community here. FWIW, David didn't even participate in this thread. This one was initiated by Carlos. David started a twin thread elsewhere. Yeah, that confused me too. Of course I raised the issue in David's thread too, as soon as I noticed the duplication. > David is not a company, nor is he (AFAIK) in any way related to > Anthropic. It's almost as if you were arguing that getting someone else to post your unsolicited commercial email makes it no longer be spam. I really don't think this is the case. > I'm disputing your uncalled-for attack on David Erhm. What attack? There's no attack on David, or on Carlos, for that matter. What I'm doing is call out the initiation of the threads as spam, and insisting that we shouldn't normalize or repeat that kind of post, because it would be detrimental to our shared goals. If I'm attacking anything, it's an idea, not a person. But I really don't feel that it's an attack, it's just a civil debate, even when I use strong words. It's clear that some people feel strongly about this divisive issue, myself included, which might possibly twist some perceptions. > No, because it was a legitimate post that doesn't qualify as spam or > anything near it. You may think otherwise, but you are very wrong. Oh, how kind of you to let me know the ultimate truth that emanates from wherever you get it. I'm not that privileged, I just happen to hold my own opinions, and sometimes I try to express them to try to come to agreement with others who don't seem to share them. Because these are shared media, the alternative to coming to an agreement is for either opinion to be imposed on other participants, which, as you seem to suggest, is not cool. And I haven't even raised yet the issue of David and Carlos legitimacy to pick who gets assigned slots. Shouldn't that choice be for the community to make democratically, as you say? As the choice on whether to pass the "generous offer"? Or is this democracy you call for only desirable when someone with access to the ultimate truth finds it favorable? -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/ Free Software Activist FSFLA co-founder GNU Toolchain Engineer Learn the truth about Richard Stallman at https://stallmansupport.org/