which lgpl version does the repo follows

[runcom]

Since we don't use headers in source files, it's not clear if the project is licensed under the:

• lgpl 2.1 or later
• lgpl 2.1 only

The License itself doesn't change, just the headers that we don't use, but since we need to fix the License text in Fedora, we need to know exactly what is it

[nullr0ute]

It's not a library, so I'm not sure why it's using LGPL at all TBH

[runcom]

It's not a library, so I'm not sure why it's using LGPL at all TBH

that became my second question too lol - @LorbusChris any idea?

[LorbusChris]

I don't recall why LGPL was chosen. I'd be fine with re-licensing my contributions to this repo (including the name) too if that helps.

[LorbusChris]

Let's stick to lgpl 2.1 only for now?