Updated LGPL license files

[j5bot]

My apologies for the additional PR. I was reviewing GNU recommendations for licensing LGPL and came across the recommendation to include the GPL under COPYING and LGPL under COPYING.LESSER ... which matches what bs-platform is doing.

I thought I would help out a little more and make the changes to go along with the recommendations.

Cheers!

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 99.045% when pulling 1fde6a5 on j5bot:master into f575a9f on glennsl:master.

[glennsl]

Sorry about the late response. I was going to look into what the significance of different naming schemes for licenses are, but the got side-tracked for a bit.

Anyway, I can;t really see what the purpose of this naming scheme would be, other than being more familiar for GNU folks. But I think the current naming scheme is a lot more intuitive, and more familiar for most people. I also don't think the GNU naming scheme works well will dual-licensing.

Adding the GPL license is a good idea though. So unless you have counterarguments or objections, could you revert the renaming and add the GPL as LICENSE.GPL-3.0 or some such instead?