Arch’s package management is actually the ideal, in my opinion. Official repositories for the stuff the distro maintainers want to officially support, a user-maintained AUR for other common packages, and the ability to build your own software with the Arch Build System, and letting pacman know where everything is. In a sense, the stuff in the official repositories have a privileged position, and you should be aware of the difference between the AUR and the official repositories, but you’re still always in control of what software is installed.
The AUR packages and user-specific builds can be thought of as side loading, and the distinction can matter in some circumstances. So I’m ok with having another name for different installation/upgrade/update methods.



The law doesn’t allow you to launder copyright like that. That’s just a derivative work, which can be restricted by the copyright holder in the original. As an example, in fictional writing, distinct characters are copyrighted, and using an LLM to generate new works using those copyrighted characters would still be a derivative work that the original copyright owner would have the right to deny distribution.
So if you have a copyrighted codebase and you try to implement that codebase using some kind of transformation of that code, that’d still be a derivative work and infringe the original copyright.
Now if you have some kind of clean room implementation where you can show that it was written without copying the original code itself, only working to implement its functionality through documentation/reverse engineering how the code worked, you’d be able to escape out of calling it a derivative work and could distribute it without the original copyright holder’s permission (Compaq did this with the IBM BIOS to make unauthorized/unlicensed PC clones, and Google did this with the Java API to make Android without a license from Sun/Oracle and won at the Supreme Court).
No, because Claude’s code is still created by humans with the assistance of non-human tools. There’s a spectrum from spelling correction and tab completion in IDEs all the way to full vibe coding with a prompt describing the raw functionality (where the prompt is so uncreative that it isn’t itself copyrightable). Anthropic has never claimed that there was no human in the loop, or that the prompts it uses are so uncreative and purely functional so that the outputs aren’t copyrightable.