Clarify licensing terms for CSS

[esseks]

The default CSS style is released under a GPLv3 license, which is intended primarily for computer programs. In fact, it includes references to source code, linked libraries, binaries etc. etc.

There is no clear consensus about the implications of applying such a license outside the original scope. It can be done in practice, but it poses additional problems, since some definitions become ambiguos when out of the computer program source vs. executable frame.

It would be nice if you included a FAQ or a license exception (if it is the case, IANAL) addressing the following concerns arising from the "virality" of GPL:

1. Is the HTML page considered "code" to which your CSS is "linked" for the purposes of the GPL? Does it mean that if minify my HTML, I have to provide a non-minified "source" distribution? Do I have to provide an archive or a written notice for requesting one?
2. If the HTML markup is considered code, does it mean that I have to license under GPLv3 whatever is published on the website that hosts the page?
3. If the HTML is not what you call "source", does it mean that I have to distribute the LyX files?

I hope you understand that these points offer a few inconveniences to people (like myself) who would like to build a personal website both without violating the terms of licensing and without having to provide "source code" for what is not really code :)

[alexfernandez]

Hi, is this commit good enough for you?
7a43144

Basically just use the CSS as you desire.