Again, not interested in arguing the actual ethics of the licenses. But I think most people would consider a license that allows modification without demanding redistribution to be more individually permissive than one that requires redistribution. Companies love MIT and it’s ilk, because it’s more permissive of their (arguably poor) behavior.

It's more permissive, true, but it's not more free. As an analogy, consider that taking away people's permission to own slaves didn't make society less free.

The fact that you need to add a specifier for that 'individually' permissive says everything about the difference in the licenses' goals.

GPL3 or GPL2? After what github did with copilot, Chinese companies that don’t release source code, or western companies that do the same I don’t see any ways to enforce them, you just need to trust the authors or the users. Has there been a landmark case that solidifies any of this? Chinese companies don’t follow US IP either so I find it hard to believe they can do anything.

How does MIT prevent users changing the code? They have explicit permission to take the code and change it however they want.

Not if you don't get the source with the binary.

It doesn't prevent that directly. What it does is allow proprietary forks, and those proprietary forks prevent that.