Nominations for Anthropic’s Claude for Open Source program

[Sam James]

Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com> writes:

> Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't have access to Gnulib's coverity, but GNU coreutils shows a lot
> of Gnulib stuff anyways. My feeling is that it is useful, but one has to
> do some work to filter out perfectly legitimate code (e.g., the coverity
> machine complains about type limit comparisons which may be different on
> less common platforms).
>

This is a common sentiment I hear with Coverity. Generally useful but
need people to do the work on reviewing findings and keep on top of that.

> I don't disagree that LLM review is useful. However, I do want to state
> my *personal* opinions here as I did in that Gnulib thread. Anthropic
> (and OpenAI, which has a similar program) tend to play this program up
> to show how altruistic and great they are. However, the 6 month limit
> makes it seem like a strategic plan to gain future subscribers.

It appears that it's also not some specific offer they've made to our
community: https://claude.com/contact-sales/claude-for-oss and
https://www.anthropic.com/claude-for-oss-terms.

I think it unfortunately acts as advertising. I am sure that was not the
intent but it seems to be the effect nonetheless :(

> [...]

sam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 418 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20260613/5803d198/attachment.sig>