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

> From: Alexandre Oliva <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
>         [email protected], [email protected],
>         [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:59:23 -0300
> 
> On Jun 18, 2026, Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >> Cc: Mark Wielaard <[email protected]>, Andrew Pinski <[email protected]>,
> >> Adhemerval Zanella Netto <[email protected]>, glibc
> >> developers <[email protected]>, gdb developers <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 13:28:57 -0300
> >> From: Alexandre Oliva via Gdb <[email protected]>
> >> 
> >> 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
> 
> It's not.
> 
> The offer is promotional, for a short time, to attract new users.

That's plausibly Anthropic's motivation, but you accused David in
advertising, not Anthropic.  I don't care about what you say about
Anthropic, but I do care what you say about David and other members of
our community here.

> Indeed, it fits the pattern that companies use with influencers
> nowadays, offering them gratis access to a product for them to publish
> their use of the product/service and thereby promote the product/service
> to an even broader public.  Companies usually pay for that.

David is not a company, nor is he (AFAIK) in any way related to
Anthropic.

> Now, maybe you're not disputing that it was advertisement.
> 
> Maybe you're disputing that it's misaligned with GNU.

I'm disputing your uncalled-for attack on David, and similar attacks
by others in this discussion.

> > 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.
> 
> They seem to have missed the post that started this thread

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.
Your demand to censor such messages is also in stark contrast the
democratic traditions of GNU.

> > if we cannot talk between ourselves in a kinder manner
> 
> Being kind encompasses not extending dangerous and harmful offers onto
> your colleagues.  Smoke your crack if you must, but please don't try to
> "help" others get hooked through "generous" offers in here.  It's not
> kind.  It's not cool.  It's detrimental.  It's divisive.  The offer is
> an attack on the freedoms we stand for.  Why are we even debating it?

Because you are viciously attacking one of us (and now also myself),
for no good reason, using a language that should not be heard here.
Please stop!  It is completely inappropriate and unbecoming!