@paulox As user, I don't see any legal risk there.

I think it was badform to not rename the project. v7 could have just as easily used the new renamed project and incurred much less rath, but here we are.

Do you use chardet directly? I know a bunch of libraries to, but I have never used it directly.

@webology Regardless of personal opinions on copyleft licenses, the clear point is that changing the license to chardet violates the LGPL.

The maintainers who did this would have had to create a new project from scratch and choose their own license if they wanted to rewrite the library.

By choosing instead to blatantly violate the project's license, they have created an unstable situation that could impact libraries that depend on chardet.

As I said I would pin chardet<7 and wait for a bit.

@paulox I don’t have strong opinions about copyleft licenses. As I mentioned, my main concern was that reusing the project name with a different license feels like bad form. 🤷

If they had created a new project and used an LLM to generate the code, it seems reasonable that they could choose whatever license they want, unless that license explicitly restricted LLM use. One of my few critiques of open source licensing is that they intentionally avoid adding usage restrictions like that.