Now what about the user-generated content (e.g. blog post)? The content is mixed with the HTML from the GPL-covered work. Is it then also subject to the GPL? I

Now what about the user-generated content (e.g. blog post)? The content is mixed with the HTML from the GPL-covered work. Is it then also subject to the GPL? I ask, because Bison is distributed under a modified GPL for this reason, and Gnu.org addresses the question with respect to Bison and to CMS templates. "As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs." - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForN... That document also addresses CMS templates specifically, stating that they basically shouldn't be GPL, for the same reason, as far as I can tell: "It is normally harmless to use copyleft on minor works, but templates are a special case, because they are combined with data provided by users of the application and the combination is distributed. So, we recommend that you license your templates under simple permissive terms." - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS Relatedly, I've been bothered by Drupal.org and the SFLC's stance that all Drupal modules and themes are GPL-covered for exactly this reason. [edit: for exactly the reason that the SFLC is claiming that Thesis is GPL]