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

On 12/06/26 16:29, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 12:19 PM Carlos O'Donell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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.


[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