Usually using the "fork" option suffices... these changed the original repo to remove GPL and such.

I presume one wouldn't strip copyright in those cases.

Actually it does which is kind of the point, it's just those conditions are fairly easy to meet. The TL;DR: version is that if you use LGPL code in your project you have to redistribute the source code of that LGPL code including copyright notices. In practice that requirement can usually be fulfilled by simply providing a link someplace convenient to wherever you original got the code from yourself so it's pretty easy to comply with. Additionally GPL and LGPL differ primarily in that GPL requires that code that uses it must itself be licensed under GPL, where as LGPL allows non-LGPL code to be linked to LGPL code (so long as the conditions of the LGPL code are still being met, primarily the distribution clause). The big difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 was mostly about closing some loopholes that some companies (primarily TiVo) used to make it impossible to modify certain GPL code on their devices (mainly this involved using hardware DRM). This obviously violated the spirit of the GPL because the whole point is to allow for people to tinker with the code, and preventing that by coupling it to proprietary hardware as a end run around the GPL necessitated the creation of GPLv3 specifically to make doing that a violation of the license.

> GPLv3 doesn't impose any conditions on use.

This is not true, GPLv3 has use conditions which are conditioned on the target market of the product.

> This is LGPLv3, which has even fewer requirements.

OTOH, this is true.

Never mind, didn't see that it was LGPL.