In case you're not the sole original author of the Geep Jeez IDE, it looks like you're currently obscuring the IDE's license, as it's distributed under the LGPL-3.0 license, which means this repo's MIT license doesn't cover its source-code in actuality.
If your codebase were to be organized in a more conventional way, with the source directly available for merging pull requests that could lead to contributors falsely assuming their contributions to the IDE's code are covered by the MIT license.
It doesn't seem like you're strongly violating LGPL, as you include the source code of the IDE in the archive (which is great) but neither the license nor attribution to the authors of the code, which is required.
My advice would be to commit the actual extracted contents of the 7z archives to this repo[^1] and mention in the README that it contains a fork of the Geep Jeez IDE code, which is covered under its own license (LGPL-3.0).
[^1]: Repository's organization requires its own issue.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
In case you're not the sole original author of the Geep Jeez IDE, it looks like you're currently obscuring the IDE's license, as it's distributed under the LGPL-3.0 license, which means this repo's MIT license doesn't cover its source-code in actuality.
If your codebase were to be organized in a more conventional way, with the source directly available for merging pull requests that could lead to contributors falsely assuming their contributions to the IDE's code are covered by the MIT license.
It doesn't seem like you're strongly violating LGPL, as you include the source code of the IDE in the archive (which is great) but neither the license nor attribution to the authors of the code, which is required.
My advice would be to commit the actual extracted contents of the 7z archives to this repo[^1] and mention in the README that it contains a fork of the Geep Jeez IDE code, which is covered under its own license (LGPL-3.0).
[^1]: Repository's organization requires its own issue.