And just to add more fuel to the fire...
Reading the gpl v3 it is clear that if you include a gpl'd work, you need to provide the source with the license text at the top of the file and the copyright statement.
So if I strip comments and whitespace from the file and shorten variable names, then 'distribute' it to someone's browser (in source form of course) I would probably be in violation of the license. BTW, a solution might be a binary uuid that stands for the appropriate licenses for the mangled files. Thoughts?
If I provide the source of the library and my own 'source' using the library with a gpl stmt on it, does delivering it to the browser constitute providing the source freely?
I think there are enough loopholes in this to make the license unenforceable.
my 2cents/ not a lawyer.
