LGPL 2.1 license incompatibility with Apache

[eddies]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
discreetly has a handful of direct, runtime dependencies:

Library	License
click	BSD 3-Clause
boto3	Apache 2.0
google-cloud-kms	Apache 2.0
google-cloud-datastore	Apache 2.0

as well as a number of development-only dependencies

Library	License
tox	MIT
pytest	MIT
moto	Apache 2.0

Evidently, the LGPL 2.1 license that was chosen for discreetly is incompatible with (at least) the Apache 2.0 license:

this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in that GPL version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions.

However, the GPL version 3 (and thereby the LGPLv3) is compatible with Apache 2.0 (at least in one direction). Per the ASF:

Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works. However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects. The licenses are incompatible in one direction only, and it is a result of ASF's licensing philosophy and the GPLv3 authors' interpretation of copyright law.

This licensing incompatibility applies only when some Apache project software becomes a derivative work of some GPLv3 software, because then the Apache software would have to be distributed under GPLv3. This would be incompatible with ASF's requirement that all Apache software must be distributed under the Apache License 2.0.

There's an old, long discussion about the ASF's policy decision to disallow LGPL'ed (v2 or 3) software in their own projects--emphasis on policy rather than legal decision.

Describe the solution you'd like
At the least, discreetly should be relicensed under LGPLv3.
Possibly, consider relicensing under another license entirely, e.g. Apache 2.0

Additional context

• Why is LGPL not allowed
• Linking from LGPL 2.1 software to Apache 2.0 library