FWIW, the HTML + CSS approach of the author is just as copyrightable and potentially non-free as the JS in question. There's really no difference. Sure his 'cod

FWIW, the HTML + CSS approach of the author is just as copyrightable and potentially non-free as the JS in question. There's really no difference. Sure his 'code' is practically pointless, but that's no obstacle to being non-free. Uglified/minified HTML+CSS is almost as difficult to parse by humans as JS. I'm all for free software and very supportive of the arguments, but the pro-HTML, anti-JS rhetoric never made a lot of sense to me, consistency-wise, at least in these days of CSS3.