Good luck at guessing how "static/dynamic linking" applies to javascript. Then wonder nexus between the concept of "distributing" and HTTP downloading.
It's license trolling at its finest :)
Wow, I hadn't even noticed that... Other than ExtJS (which is dual licensed, and their intent is clear), I don't think I've seen JS licensed under something that isn't very close to MIT/ISC or similar.
And as to static/dynamic, absolutely.. if it's properly abstracted, does dynamic mean just leaving it in its' own file (separate script tag in the browser)?
None of the requirement or rights in GPLv3 mentions dynamic or static linking, so one do not need apply such concepts to javascript.
Scope of the work however is not well defined on the web. Is each page a separate work, or should the domain of a site define the limits where one work begin and one work ends? Does a image count as part of the work, or abstracted and separated? What about links? And then we got Javascript.
Personally, I lean towards JS and images being in the same boat. If an image creates a derivative work when added to a website, then JS surely does the same.
Good luck at guessing how "static/dynamic linking" applies to javascript. Then wonder nexus between the concept of "distributing" and HTTP downloading. It's license trolling at its finest :)