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 10:43:24 -0300
> 
> On Jun 18, 2026, Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> 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?

The original message was not a TV advertisement, either.  And no, it
isn't a language issue, not from my side anyway.

> > 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.

No commercial email was posted here in that message, none at all.

> > 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.

You are attacking people by using denigrating language that
characterizes their actions.

> 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.

I suggest that you re-read your own messages.  They tell a very
different story.  If you don't think so, maybe ask a friend to give
you an independent opinion.

> > 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.

You are entitled to your opinions, but please make a point of
expressing them politely.

> 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?

We can discuss this, but it is a separate issue.