Yes, in principle the same would apply to the MIT license, but in practice it’s pretty much impossible to violate the terms of that license, so it would never get tested. LGPL on the other hand, could lead to real, practical problems. As for why they would insist on MIT, there’s more MIT-licensed code used in production than public domain code. They’re already cosplaying as programmers by producing this slop, who knows what else they’ll do for the sake of appearances?

Is it possible that the license change was the goal and the use of AI was the means to achieve it? Of course. Should I have expressed that what I proposed was only a possible reason? Yeah, probably. But putting it as something like “the devs claim yada yada…” would have been incorrect. While the way the original question was asked meant that obviously, any answers would be from the hypothetical perspective of the maintainers (which is why the fact that the new version of chardet violates the license of the original code is irrelevant, because they wouldn’t think so), I worded my comment as an assertion because it was an assertion. By me. Because it’s the only possibility that is consistent with current legal precedent. And whether or not that was the or a reason for the license change, it’s something that would have been a real issue had they kept the license.

Now, you accuse me of insulting people’s intelligence, but when two people respond to my comment in the same way, obviously the problem lies with me. But you have been very unclear in conveying what exactly that problem is. You went form pointing out that the generated code is still in violation of the original license, which while true, is again, irrelevant in this context (and I still don’t really understand why you would think that it was) to not liking how assertively I worded the consequences for the enforceability of the LGPL license when it comes to code than cannot have copyright, I guess?